Supreme Court Deciep Cases & Oruer Issuzs ‘THAT MADE IT TO THE HEADLINES IN YEARS 2015-2018 Justin Ryan D. Morilla Ls Updated on Octber 12,2018, PARDON OF ERAP Risos-Vidal vy. COMELEC January 21, 2015 DEATH BY HAZING ‘Dungo v. People July 1, 2015 POLITICAL LAW; PARDON: Former President Estrada was granted an absolute pardon that fully restored all his civil and political rights, which naturally includes the right to seck public elective office, the focal point of this controversy. The wording of the pardon extended to former President Estrada is complete, unambiguous, and unqualified. It is this Coun’s firm view that the phrase in the presidential pardon at issue which declares. that former President Estrada “is hereby restored to his civil and political rights” substantially complies with the requirement of express restoration under Articles. 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code. POLITICAL LAW; DISQUALIFICATION TO RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE: Section 40 of the LGC identifies who are disqualified from running for any elective local position, to wit: (a) Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving sentence. While it may be apparent that the proscription in Seetion 40(a) of the LGC is worded in absolute terms, Section 12 of the EC provides a legal escape from the prohibition ~ a plenary pardon or amnesty. In other words, the latter provision allows any person who has been granted plenary pardon or amnesty after conviction by final judgment of an offense involving moral turpitude, inter alia, to run for and hold any public office, whether local or national position. The disqualification of former President Estrada under Section 40 of the LGC in relation to Section 12 of the OEC was removed by his acceptance of the absolute pardon granted to him. CRIMINAL LAW; MALUM PROHIBITUM ‘The crime of hazing under R.A. No. 8049 is malum prohibitum, The Senate deliberations would show that the lawmakers intended the anti-hazing statute to be malum prohibitum. In Vedana v. Valencia, the Court noted that in our nation’s very recent history, the people had spoken, through the Congress, to deem conduct constitutive of hazing, an act previously considered harmless by custom, as criminal. The act of hazing itself is not inherently immoral, but the law deems the same to be against public policy and must be prohibited. Accordingly, the existence of criminal intent is immaterial in the crime of hazing. Also, the defense of good faith cannot be raised in its prosecution. See Republic Act 11053 for the Anti-Hazing Act of 2018 DISMISSAL OF JUNJUN BINAY Carpio Morales v. CA November 10, 2015 POLITICAL LAW; ABANDONING THE CONDONATION DOCTRINE: To begin with, the concept of public office is a public trust and the corollary requirement of accountability to the people at all times, as mandated under the 1987 Constitution, is plainly inconsistent with the idea that an elective local official's administrative liability for a misconduct committed during a prior term can be wiped off by the fact that he was elected to a second term of office, or even another elective post. Election is not a mode of condoning an administrative offense, and there is simply no constitutional or statutory basis in our jurisdiction to support the notion that an official elected for a different term is fully absolved of any administrative liability arising from an offense done during a prior term, Page 1 of 22Supreme Court Deciep Cases & Oruer Issurs ‘THAT MADE IT TO THE HEADLINES IN YEARS 2015-2018 Justin Ryan D. Morilla Ls Updated on Octber 12,2018, Also, it cannot be inferred from Section 60 of the LGC that the grounds for discipline enumerated therein cannot anymore be invoked against an elective local official to hold him administratively liable once he is re-elected to office. In fact, Section 40 (b) of the LGC precludes condonation since in the first place, an elective local official who is meted with the penalty of removal could not be re-elected to an elective local position due to a direct disqualification from running for such post. In similar regard, Section 52 (a) of the RRACCS imposes a penalty of perpetual disqualification from holding public office as an accessory to the penalty of dismissal from service. Tt should, however, be clarified that this Court’s abandonment of the condonation doctrine should be prospective in application for the reason that judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution, until reversed, shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines KILLING OF JENNIFER LAUDE, Laude y. Ginez-Jabalde November 24, 2015 REMEDIAL LAW; NOTICE OF HEARING: Rule 15, Section 4 of the Rules of Court clearly makes it a mandatory rule that the adverse party be given notice of hearing on the motion at least three days prior. While the general rule is that a motion that fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 15 is a mere scrap of paper, an exception may be made, and the motion may still be acted upon by the court, provided doing so will neither cause prejudice to the other party nor violate his or her due process rights. 113 The adverse party must be given time to study the motion in order to enable him or her to prepare properly and engage the arguments of the movant. 114 In this case, the general rule must apply because Pemberton was not given sufficient time to study petitioners’ Motion, thereby depriving him of his right to procedural due process. POLITICAL LAW; JUDICIAL REVI THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE VISITNG FORCES AGREEMENT: The constitutionality of an official act may be the subject of judicial review, provided the matter is not raised coilaterally. The constitutionality of the Visiting Forces Agreement is not the fis mora of this Petition, Petitioners started their Petition with a claim that their right to access to justice was violated, but ended it with a prayer for a declaration of the Visiting Forces Agreement’s unconstitutionality. They attempt to ereate the connection between the two by asserting that the Visiting Forces Agreement prevents the transfer of Pemberton to Olongapo City Jail, which allegedly is tantamount to the impairment of this court's authority. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL JURISDICTION AND CUSTODY: The issues of criminal jurisdiction and custody during trial as contained in the Visiting Forces Agreement were discussed in Nicolas v. Secretary Romulo. REMEDIAL LAW; WRIT OF MANDATORY INJUNCTION: It is likewise established that a writ of mandatory injunction is granted upon a showing that (a) the invasion of the right is material and intial; (b) the right of complainant is clear and takable; and (c) there is an urgent and permanent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. Nowhere in their Petition did petitioners discuss the basis for their claim that they are entitled to the sought writ, let alone mention it in their arguments, This court cannot consider the issuance of a writ of mandatory injunction or a temporary restraining order without any legal and factual basis. GERRY ORTEGA MURDER CASE De Lima v. Reyes January 11, 2016 REMEDIAL LAW; PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION: In a preliminary investigation, the prosecutor does not determine the guilt or Page 2 0f 22Supreme Court Decivep Cases & Oruer Issurs ‘THAT MADE IT TO THE HEADLINES IN YEARS 2015-2018 Justin Ryan D. Morilla Ls Updated on Octber 12,2018, innocence of an accused. The prosecutor only determines "whether there is sufficient ground to ‘engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial." As such, the prosecutor does not perform qu REMEDIAL LAW; EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE: There are two kinds of determination of probable cause: executive and judicial. The executive determination of probable cause is one made during preliminary investigation. Itis a function that properly pertains to the public prosecutor who is given a broad discretion to determine whether probable cause exists and to charge those whom he believes to have committed the crime as defined by law and thus should be held for trial. Otherwise stated, such official has the quas judicial authority to determine whether or not a ‘criminal case must be filed in court. Whether or not that function has been correctly discharged by the public prosecutor, i.e., whether or not he has made a cortect ascertainment of the existence of probable cause in a case, is a matter that the trial court itself does not and may not be compelled to pass upon. ‘The judicial determination of probable cause, on the other hand, is one made by the judge to ascertain whether a warrant of arrest should he issued against the accused. The judge must satisfy himself that based on the evidence submitted, there is necessity for placing the accused under custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. If the judge finds no probable cause, the judge cannot be forced to issue the arrest warrant, REMEDIAL LAW; EFFECT OF FILING OF INFORMATION TO THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION: The preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal for the purpose of, determining whether a prima facie case exists warranting the prosecution of the accused is terminated upon the filing of the information in the proper court. In turn, as above stated, the filing of said information sets in motion the criminal action against the accused in Court, Should the fiscal find it proper to conduct a reinvestigation of the case, at such stage, the permission of the Court must be secured. After such reinvestigation the finding and recommendations of the fiscal should be submitted to the Court for appropriate action, While it is true that the fiseal has the quasi judicial discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in court or not, once the case had already been brought to Court whatever disposition the fiseal may feel should be proper in the case thereafter should be addressed for the consideration of the Court, the only qualification is that the action of the Court must not impair the substantial rights of the accused or the right of the People to due process of law. (Citing Crespo v. Mogul) REMEDIAL LAW; REFUSAL BY THE COURT TO GRANT MOTION TO DISMISS FILED BY ‘THE PROSECUTOR UPON THE DIRECTIVE OF THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE: The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in Court any disposition of the case as to its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even while the case is already in Court he cannot impose s opinion on the trial court. The Court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it.- The determination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and competence. A motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiseal should be addressed to the Court who has the option to grant or deny the same, It does not matter if this is done before or after the arraignment of the accused or that the motion was filed after a reinvestigation or upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the records of the investigation. (Citing Crespo v. Mogul) Page 3 of 22Supreme Court Decivep Cases & Oruer Issurs ‘THAT MADE IT TO THE HEADLINES IN YEARS 2015-2018 Justin Ryan D. Morilla Ls Updated on Octber 12,2018, ENHANCED DEFENSE COOPERATION AGREEMENT Saguisag v. Ochoa January 12, 2016 POLITICAL LAW; EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS: The Constitution prohibits the entry of foreign military bases, troops or facilities, except by way of a treaty concurred in by the Senate - a clear limitation on the President's dual role as defender of the State and as sole authority in foreign relations. However, the President may enter into an executive agreement on foreign military bases, troops, or facilities, if (a) it is not the instrument that allows the presence of foreign military bases, troops, or facilities; or (b) it merely aims to implement an existing law or treaty (Mutual Defense Treaty and Visiting Forces Agreement), CITIZENSHIP OF SEN. GRACE POE Poe-Liamanzares v. COMELEC Dissenting Opinion of J. Del Castillo March 8, 2016 POLITICAL LAW; CANCELLATION OR DENIAL OF DUE COURSE TO A COC: To be sufficient, a Section 78 petition must contain the following ultimate facts: "(1) the candidate made a representation in his certificate; (2) the representation pertains to a material matter which ‘would affect the substantive rights of the candidate (the right to run for the elective position for which he filed his certificate); and (3) the candidate made the false representation with the imtention to deceive the electorate as to his qualification for public office or deliberately attempted to mislead, misinform or hid a fact which would otherwise render him ineligible. RE Anent the contention that the Comelec lacks jurisdiction over candidates for national positions, suffice it to state that Section 78 of the OEC does not distinguish between CoCs of candidates running for local and those running for national positions. It simply mentions "certificate of candidacy." Ubi lex non distinguit nee nos distingu-ere debernus - when the law does not distinguish, we must not distinguish, This is a basic rule in statutory construction that is applicable in these cases. Hence, the Comelec has the power to determine if the CoC of candidates, whether running fora local ot for a national position, contains false material representation, In other words, any person may avail himself/herself of Section 78 of the OEC to assail the CoC of candidates regardless of the position for which they are aspiring. POLITICAL LAW; SECTION 78 AND QUO WARRANTO: While it is admitted that there is a similarity between a petition under Section 78 of the OEC and aguo warranto proceeding in that they both deal with the eligibility or qualification of a candidate, what sets them apart is the time when the action is filed, that is, before or after an election and proclamation. As the election subject of these petitions is yet to be held, there can be no doubt that the issues raised by respondents were properly set forth in their respective petitions for cancellation and/or denial of due course to petitioner's CoC. POLITICAL LAW; JURISDICTION OF COMELEC AND PET: As heretofore stated, a petition under Section 78 seeks to cancel a candidate's CoC before there has been an election and proclamation, Such a petition is within the Comelec’s jurisdiction as it is "the sole judge of all pre-proclamation controversies.” On the other hand, the PET is "the sole judge of all contests relating tthe election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President of the Philippines.” Particularly, the PET has jurisdiction over an election contest initiated through an election protest’ or a petition for quo warranto against the President or Vice-President. The PET’s adjudicative powers come into play after the President or the Vice-President concerned had been elected and proclaimed. Under the PET Rules an election protest may be filed only within 30 days Page 4 of 22Supreme Court Decivep Cases & Oruer Issurs ‘THAT MADE IT TO THE HEADLINES IN YEARS 2015-2018 Justin Ryan D. Morilla Ls Updated on Octber 12,2018, after proclamation of the winner, while a quo warranto petition may be initiated within 10 days after the proclamation of the winner, In other words, it is the date of proclamation of the candidate concerned that is determinative of the time when the PET's jurisdiction attaches, POLITCAL LAW; EFFECT OF SET DECISION ON COMELEC: Furthermore, the Comelec is an independent constitutional body separate and distinet from the SET. While the SET is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of Members of the Senate, its decisions do not have any doctrinal or binding effect on the Comelee. It is settled that there is "only one Supreme Court from whose decisions all other courts [or tribunals] should take their bearings." Here, the November 17, 2015 SET Decision is the subject of a Petition for Certiorari entitled David v. Senate Electoral Tribunal, and docketed as GR. No. 221538, that is still pending before this Court, Until said petition is decided with finality by this Court, any ruling on petitioner's citizenship does not, subject to the conditions that will be discussed later, constitute res judicata, POLITICAL LAW; REMEDIAL LAW; RES JUDICATA IN CITIZENSHIP CASES: In Go, Sr. v. Ramos, the Supreme Court held that res judicata may apply in citizenship cases only if the following conditions or circumstances concur: 1. a person's citizenship must be raised as a material issue in a controversy where said person is a party; 2. the Solicitor General or his authorized representative took active part in the resolution thereof; and 3. the finding off] citizenship is affirmed by this Court POLITICAL LAW; RESIDENCY: Section 2 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution requires, among others, that a person aspiring to become a President ‘must be a resident of the Philippines for at least 10 years immediately preceding the election. This requirement is mandatory and must be complied with strictly. For one, no less than our Constitution itself imposes it. XXX For purposes of election laws, the Supreme Court, as early as 1928,held that the term residence is synonymous with domicile. Domicile denotes the place "where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home,’ where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return and remain" POLITICAL LAW; TYPES OF DOMICILI Domicile is classified into three types according on its source, namely: (1) domicile of origin, which an individual acquires at birth or his first domicile; (2) domicile of choice, which the individual freely chooses after abandoning the old domicile; and (3) domicile by operation of law, which the law assigns to an individual independently of his or her intention. A person can only have a single domicile at any given time. POLITICAL LAW; ACQUISITION OF NEW DOMICILE: To successfully effect a change of domicile, one must demonstrate an actual removal or aan actual change of domicile; 2 bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one and definite acts which correspond with the purpose.” In the absence of clear and positive proof of the above-mentioned requisites, the current domicile should be deemed to continue. Only with clear evidence showing concurrence of all three requirements can the presumption of continuity of residence be rebutted, for a change of legal residence requires an actual and deliberate abandonment of the old domicile. REMEDIAL LAW; ADMISSIONS: To be admissible, an admission must: (a) involve matters of fact, and not of law; (b) be categorical and definite; (c) be knowingly and voluntarily made; and (d) be adverse to the admitter’s interests, otherwise it would be self-serving and inadmissible. Page Sof 22‘Supreme Court Deciep Cases & Oruer Issurs ‘THAT MADE IT TO THE HEADLINES IN YEARS 2015-2018 Justin Ryan D. Morilla Ls Updated on Octber 12,2018, POLITICAL LAW; REACQUISITION OF CITIZENSHIP, NOT A MODE TO REESTABLISH DOMICILE: However, it must be emphasized that petitioner's reacquisition of Philippine citizenship neither automatically resulted in the reestablishment of her Philippine domi in the abandonment of her U.S. domicile. Itis settled that RA 9225 treats citizenship independently of residence. It does not provide for a mode of reestablishing domicile and has no effect on the legal residence of those availing of it. This is only logical and consistent with the general intent of the law for dual citizenship. Since a natural-born Filipino may hold, at the same time, both Philippine and foreign citizenships, he{/she] may establish residence either in the Philippines or in the foreign country of which he(/She] is also a citizen. POLITICAL LAW; DOCTRINE OF CONSTITUTIONAL — AVOIDANCE: The Supreme Court may choose to ignore or side-step a constitutional question if there is some other ground upon which the case can be disposed of. LOTTERY AND PLUNDER Macapagal-Arroyo v. People July 19, 2016 REMEDIAL, LAW; CERTIORARI: Notwithstanding the interlocutory character and effect of the denial of the demurrers to evidence, the petitioners as the accused could avail themselves of the remedy of certiorari when the denial was tainted with grave abuse of discretion, CRIMINAL LAW; CONSPIRACY: To be considered a part of the conspiracy, each of the accused must be shown to have performed at least an overt act in pursuance or in furtherance of the conspiracy, for without being shown to do so none of them will be liable as a co-conspirator, and each may only be held responsible for the results of his own acts. The treatment by the Sandiganbayan of GMA’s handwritten unqualified "OK" as an overt act of plunder was absolutely unwarranted considering { was a common legal and valid practice ing approval of a fund release by the President. Indeed, pursuant to People v. Lizada, supra, an act or conduct becomes an overt act of a crime only when it evinces a causal relation to the intended crime because the act or conduct will not be an overt act of the crime if it does not have an immediate and necessary relation to the offense. CRIMINAL LAW; PLUNDER: The law on plunder requires that a particular public officer must be identified as the one who amassed, acquired or accumulated ill-gotten wealth because it plainly states that plunder is committed by any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, masses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount or total value of at least P50,000,000.00 through. a combination or series of overt criminal acts as described in Section I(d) hereof. Surely, the law requires in the criminal charge for plunder against several individuals that there must be a main plunderer and her co- conspirators, who may be members of her family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons. Here, considering that 10 persons have been accused of amassing, accumulating and/or acquiring ill-gotten wealth aggregating P365,997,915.00, it would be improbable that the crime charged was plunder if none of them was alleged to be the main plunderer. As such, each of the 10 accused would account for the aliquot amount of only P36,599,791.50, or exactly 1/10 of the alleged aggregate ill-gotten wealth, which is far below the threshold value of ill- gotten wealth required for plunder. POLITICAL LAW; REMEDIAL LAW; RIGHTS OF AN ACCUSED: Despite the silence of the information on who the main plunderer or the mastermind was, the Sandiganbayan readily condemned GMA as the mastermind despite the absence of the specific allegation in the information Page 6 0f 22Supreme Court Deciep Cases & Oruer Issurs ‘THAT MADE IT TO THE HEADLINES IN YEARS 2018-2018 Justin Ryan D. Morilla Ls Updated on Octber 12,2018, to that effect. In fine, the Prosecution's failure to properly allege the main plunderer should be fatal to the cause of the State against the petitioners for violating the rights of each accused to be informed of the charges against each of them POLITICAL LAW; DOCTRINE OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY: The Prosecution seems to be relying on the doctrine of command responsibility to impute the actions of subordinate officers to GMA as the superior officer. The reliance is misplaced, for incriminating GMA under those terms was legally unacceptable and incomprehensible, The application of the doctrine of command responsibility is limited, and cannot be true for all litigations. The Court ruled in Rodriguez v, Macapagal-Arroyo that command responsibility pertains to the responsibility of commanders for crimes committed by subordinate members of the armed forces or other persons subject to their control in international wars or domestic conflict. ‘The doctrine has also found application in civil actions for human rights abuses. But this case involves neither a probe of GMA' s actions as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, nor of a human rights issue. MARCOS BURIAL, Ocampo v. Enriquez J. Del Castillo joining the Separate Opinion of J. Mendoza November 8, 2016 Veterans of Philippine Revolution of 1890, WWI, WWII and recognized guerrillas are eligible for interment in the LNMB. When the public respondents based their decision on the applicable laws and regulations, they cannot be said to have committed grave abuse of discretion. Moreover, the decision to allow the interment of President Marcos in the LNMB is not contrary to R.A. No, 289 and R.A. No. 10368. As explained by the public respondents, the National Pantheon mentioned in R.A. No. 289 was quite different from the LNMB. As such, the standards claimed by the petitioners in R.A. No, 289 are not applicable to the LNMB. Likewise, the interment of President Marcos in the LNMB is not repugnant to the avowed policy of R.A. No. 10368, which seeks to recognize the heroism of human rights violation victims (HRVV) during martial law. First, R.A. No. 10368 neither expressly nor impliedly prohibits his burial in the LNMB. Second, his interment is not incongruous with honoring HRVVs considering that the burial is not intended to confer upon him the title of a hero. Thi the State can continue to comply with its obligation under R.A. No. 10368 to provide recognition and reparation, monetary or non-monetary, to the HRVVs, notwithstanding his burial in the LNMB. POLITICAL LAW; POLITICAL QUESTION: Dei n of President Duterte to allow President Marcos to be interred in the LNMB is beyond the ambit of judicial review. REMEDIAL LAW; GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION: In the situation at hand, no grave abuse of discretion is manifest as there is no violation of any constitutional provision or law. In fact, the public respondents were guided by, and complied with, the law. Under AFP Regulation G 161-375, MODERNIZATION OF PUJs February 2017 ‘Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila v. Board of ‘Transportation September 30, 1982 POLITICAL LAW; DUE PROCESS: Dispensing with a public hearing prior to the issuance of the Circulars (in this case — Phasing out and Replacement of Old and Dilapidated Taxis) is neither, violative of procedural due process. Page 7 of 22Supreme Court Deciep Cases & Oruer Issurs ‘THAT MADE IT TO THE HEADLINES IN YEARS 2015-2018 Justin Ryan D. Morilla Lass Update on Octber 12,2018, POLITICAL LAW; POLICE POWER: As enunciated in the preambular clauses of the challenged BOT Circular, the overriding consideration is the safety and comfort of the riding public from the dangers posed by old and dilapidated taxis. The State, in the exercise, of its police power, can prescribe regulations to promote the health, ‘morals, peace, good order, safety and general welfare of the people. It can prohibit all things hurtful to comfort, safety and welfare of society, It may also regulate property rights. IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINTS AGAINST PDU30, COMMISSIONER ANDY BAUTISTA. & SC JUSTICES 2017 POLITICAL LAW; INITIATING IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINT: Impeachment shall be initiated by the filing and subsequent referral to the Committee on Justice of: (a) a verified complaint for impeachment filed by any Member of the House of Representatives; or (b) a. verified complaint filed by any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any Member thereof; or (c) a verified complaint or resolution of impeachment filed by at least one-third (1/3) of all Members of the House, POLITICAL LAW; DETERMINING SUFFICIENCY IN FORM AND SUBSTANCE: Upon due referral, the Committee on Justice shall determine whether the complaint is sufficient in from and substance. If the committee finds that the complaint is insufficient in form, it shall return the same to the Secretary General within three (3) session days with a written explanation of the insufficiency. The Secretary General shall return the same to the complaint(s) together with the committee's written explanation within three (3) session days from receipt of the committee resolution finding the complaint insufficient in form. Should the committee find the complaint sufficient in form, it shall then determine if the complaint is sufficient in substance. The requirement of substance is met if there is a recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the commitiee. If the committee finds that the complaint is not sufficient in substance, it shall dismiss the complaint and shall submit its report as provided hereunder. POLITICAL LAW; VOTE REQUIRED FOR APPROVAL: A vote of at least one-third (1/3) of all Members of the House is necessary for the approval of the resolution setting forth the Articles of Impeachment. If the resolution is approved by the required vote, it shall then be endorsed to the Senate for its trial. On the other hand, should the resolution fail to secure the approval by the required vore, the same result in the dismissal of the complaint for impeachment. POLITICAL LAW; WHEN COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE RECOMMENDS DISMISSAL: When the report of the Committee on Justice dismisses the complaint, it shall submit to the House a resolution for the dismissal of the verified complaint and/or resolution of impeachment. A vote of at least one~ third (1/3) of all the Members of the House shall be necessary to overtide such resolution, in which case the Committee on Justice shall forthwith prepare the Articles of Impeachment. POLITICAL LAW; BAR ON IMPEACHMENT: No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a of one (1) year. REJECTION OF APPOINTMENT OF CABINET SECRETARIES 2017 POLITICAL LAW; POWER TO APPOINT: The, power of appointment is vested in the President by the Constitution, Under this provision, there are two Page 8 of 22,Supreme Court Decivep Cases & Oruer Issurs ‘THAT MADE IT TO THE HEADLINES IN YEARS 2015-2018 Justin Ryan D. Morilla Ls Update on Octber 12,2018, kinds of presidential appointments: (1) appointments ‘made during the session of Congress or the so-called regular appointments or nominations, and (2) appointments made during the recess of Congress which are also known as ad interim appointments POLITICAL = LAW; APPOINTMENT PROCESS: The regular appointments which are contemplated under the first paragraph of Article VIL, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution go through the following stages: (1) nomination; (2) consent; (3) appointment; (4) acceptance by the nominee. What the President sends to the Commission is just a nomination. After the Commission has given its consent, the President issues the appointment. It is only when the last stage has been completed may the officer concerned take his oath of office. ‘The second paragraph of Article VII, Sec. 16, of the 1987 Constitution also empowers the President to issue appointments while Congress is not in session, Such appointments are called ad_interim appointments, and it goes through the following stages: (I) appointment and (2) confirmation, POLITICAL LAW; AD INTERIM APPOINTMENTS: An ad interim appointment is permanent in nature and takes effect immediately. sued an ad interim appointment may immediately enter upon the discharge of his functions. An ad interim appointment ceases to be valid upon disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or, if not confirmed, until the next adjournment of Congress. COMPLAINT AGAINST PDU30 BEFORE ICC June 2017 POLITICAL — LAW; —_ INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT: The International Criminal Court (“the ICC” or “the Court”) is a permanent international court established to investigate, prosecute and try individuals accused of committing the most serious crimes of concem to the international community asa whole, namely the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. POLITICAL LAW; PRINCIPLE OF COMPLEMENTARITY: The ICC does not replace national criminal justice systems; rather, it complements them, It can investigate and, where ‘warranted, prosecute and try individuals only if the State concerned does not, cannot or is unwilling genuinely to do so. This might occur where proceedings are unduly delayed or are intended to shield individuals from their criminal responsibility. This is known as the principle of complementarity, under which priority is given to national systems. States retain primary responsibility for trying the perpetrators of the most serious of crimes POLITICAL LAW; JURISDICTION OF ICC: When a Stute becomes a party to the Rome Statute, itagrees to submit itself to the jurisdiction of the ICC with respect fo the crimes enumerated in the Statute ‘The Court may exercise its jurisdi it where the alleged perpetrator is a national of a State Party or where the crime was committed in the territory of a State Party. Also, a State not party to the Statute may decide to accept the jurisdiction of the ICC. POLITICAL LAW; WHO MAY BE PROSECUTED BEFORE ICC: The ICC prosecutes individuals, not groups or States, Any individual who is alleged to have committed crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC may be brought before the ICC. In fact, the Office of the Prosecutor's prosecutorial policy is to focus on those who, having regard to the evidence gathered, bear the greatest responsibility for the crimes, and does not take into account any official position that may be held by the alleged perpetrators. SOURCE: www. jee epi intficedocs/PIDS/publications/UICCEng pdt Page 9 of 22‘Supreme Court Deciep Cases & Oruer Issurs ‘THAT MADE IT TO THE HEADLINES IN YEARS 2015-2018 Justin Ryan D. Morilla Ls Updated on Octber 12,2018, MARTIAL LAW IN MINDANAO Lagman y. Medialdea Penned by J. Del Castillo July 4, 2017 POLITICAL LAW; HIERARCHY OF EXTRAORDINARY POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT: Indeed, the 1987 Constitution gives the "President, as Commander-in- Chief, a ‘sequence’ of ‘graduated powerfs]'. From the most to the least benign, these are: the calling out power, the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and the power to declare martial law." It ‘must be stressed, however, that the graduation refers only to hierarchy based on scope and effect. It does not in any manner refer to a sequence, arrangement, or order which the Commander-in-Chief must follow. This so-called "graduation of powers" does not dictate or restrict the manner by which the President decides which power to choose. POLITICAL LAW; POWER OF SUSPENDING THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DECLARING MARTIAL LAW: The extraordinary powers of suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and/or declaring martial law may be exercised only when there is actual invasion or rebellion, and public safety requires The 1987 Constitution imposed the following limits in the exercise of these powers: "(1) a time limit of sixty days; (2) review and possible revocation by Congress; [and] (3) review and possible nullification by the Supreme Court.” POLITICAL LAW; PURPOSES OF SECTION 18, ARTICLE Vil OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION: The third paragraph of Section 18, Article VII was inserted by the framers of the 1987 Constitution to constitutionalize the pre- Marcos martial law ruling of this Court in fn the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Lansang, to wit: that the factual basis of the declaration of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is not a political question but precisely within the ambit of judicial review Further, Section 18, Article VII is meant to provide additional safeguard against possible abuse by the President in the exercise of his power to declare martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The most important objective, however, of Section 18, Article VII is the curtailment of the extent of the powers of the Commander-in-Chief. This is the primary reason why the provision was not placed in Article VIII or the Judicial Department but remained under Article VII or the Executive Department. POLITICAL — LAW; ——_ TERRITORIAL COVERAGE OF MARTIAL LAW: Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution states that "[iJm case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, {the President] may x x x suspend the privilege of writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.” Clearly, the Constitution grants to the President the discretion to determine the territorial coverage of ‘martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. He may put the entire Philippines or only a part thereof under martial law. POLITICAL LAW; RECOMMENDATION OF DND SECRETARY NOT A CONDITION FOR DECLARATION OF MARTIAL LAW: Even the recommendation of, or consultation with, the Secretary of National Defense, or other high-ranking, military officials, is not a condition for the President to declare martial law. A plain reading of Section 18, Article VIL of the Constitution shows that the President's power to declare martial law is not subject to any condition except for the requirements of actual invasion or rebellion and that public safety requires it. Besides, it would be contrary to common sense if the decision of the President is made dependent on the recommendation of his mere alter ego. Rightly so, it is only on the President and no Page 10 of 22,Supreme Court Decivep Cases & Oruer Issurs ‘THAT MADE IT TO THE HEADLINES IN YEARS 2015-2018, Justin Ryan D. Morilla Ls Updated on Octber 12,2018, other that the exercise of the powers of the Commander-in-Chief under Section 18, Article VIL of the Constitution is bestowed. REMEDIAL LAW; JURISDICTION: A plain reading of Section 18, Article VII reveals that it specifically grants authority to the Court to determine the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is not restricted to those enumerated in Sections | and 5 of Article VIII. For instance, its jurisdiction to be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice- President can be found in the last paragraph of Section 4, Article VII. The power of the Court to review on certiorari the decision, order, or ruling of the Commission on Elections and Commission on Audit can be found in Section 7, Article IX(A). POLITICAL LAW; REMEDIAL LAW; APPROPRIATE PROCEEDING TO REVIEW SUFFICIENCY OF FACTUAL BASIS OF PROCLAMATION OR SUSPENSION: It could not have been the intention of the framers of the Constitution that the phrase “in an appropriate proceeding" would refer to a Petition for Certiorart pursuant to Section 1 or Section 5 of Article VIII The standard of review in a petition for certiorari is whether the respondent has committed any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in the performance of his or her functions. Thus, it is not the proper tool to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation or suspension, It must be emphasized that under Section 18, Article VIL, the Court is tasked to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the President's exercise of emergency powers. Put differently, if this Court applies the standard of review used in a petition for certiorari, the same would emasculate its constitutional task under Section 18, Article VIL. In fine, the phrase "in an appropriate proceeding” appearing on the third paragraph of Section 18, Article VII refers to any action initiated by a citizen for the purpose of questioning the sufficiency of the factual basis of the exercise of the Chief Executive's emergency powers, as in these cases. It could be denominated asa complaint, « petition, or a matter to be resolved by the Court POLITICAL LAW; SUFFICIENCY OF FACTUAL BASIS TEST: In determining the sufficiency of the factual basis of the declaration and/or the suspension, the Court should look into the full complement or totality of the factual basis, and not piecemeal or individually. Neither should the Court expect absolute correctness of the facts stated in the proclamation and in the written Report as the President could not be expected to verify the accuracy and veracity of all facts reported to him due to the urgency of the situation. To require precision in the President's appreciation of facts would unduly burden him and therefore impede the process of his decision-making. [It] would not only place the President in peril but would also defeat the very purpose of the grant of emergency powers upon him XXX. In sum, the Court’s power to review is limited to the determination of whether the President in declaring ‘martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus had sufficient factual basis. Thus, our review would be limited to an examination on whether the President acted within the bounds set by the Constitution, £e., whether the facts in his possession prior to and at the time of the declaration or suspension are sufficient for him to declare martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. ‘To summarize, the parameters for determining the sufficiency of factual basis are as follows: 1) actual rebellion or invasion; 2) public safety requires it; the first two requirements must concur; and 3) there is probable cause for the President to believe that there is actual rebellion or invasion. Page 11 of 22Supreme Court Decivep Cases & Oruer Issurs ‘THAT MADE IT TO THE HEADLINES IN YEARS 2015-2018 Justin Ryan D. Morilla Ls Updated on Octber 12,2018, POLITICAL LAW; REMEDIAL LAW; STANDARD OF PROOF FOR THE PRESIDENT: In determining the existence of rebellion, the President only needs to convince himself that there is probable cause or evidence showing that more likely than not a rebellion was commitied or is being committed. To require him to fy a higher standard of proof would restrict the exercise of his emergency powers. POLITICAL LAW; JUDICIAL POWER TO REVIEW VERSUS THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO REVOKE: In reviewing the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation or suspension, the Court considers only the information and data available to the President prior to or at the time of the declaration; it is not allowed td “undertake an independent investigation beyond the pleadings." On the other hand, Congress may take into consideration not only data available prior to, but likewise events supervening the declaration. Unlike the Court T which does not look into the absolute correctness of the factual basis as will be discussed below, Congress could probe deeper and further; it can delve into the accuracy of the facts presented before it. In addition, the Court's review power is passive; it is only initiated by the filing of a petition "in an appropriate proceeding” by a citizen. On the other hand, Congress’ review mechanism is automatic in the sense that it may be activated by Congress itself at any time after the proclamation or suspension was made. Thus, the power to review by the Court and the power to revoke by Congress are not only totally different but likewise independent from each other although concededly, they have the same trajectory, which is, the nullification of the president proclamation. Needless to say, the power of the Court to review can be exercised independently from the power of revocation of Congress. POLITICAL LAW; POWERS THE PRESIDENT CAN EXERCISE DURING MARTIAL LAW: InDavid v. President Macapagal-Arroyo, the Court, quoting Justice Vicente V. Mendoza's (Justice Mendoza) Statenient before the Senate Committee on Justice on March 13, 2006, stated that under a valid declaration of martial law, the President as Commander-in-Chief may order the “(a) arrests and seizures without judicial ‘warrants; (b) ban on public assemblies; (¢) [takeover] of news media and agencies and press censorship; and (d) issuance of Presidential Decrees x x x". Worthy to note, however, that the above-cited acts that the President may perform do not give him unbridled discretion to infringe on the rights of civilians during martial law. This is because martial Jaw does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, neither does it supplant the operation of civil courts or legislative assemblies. Moreover, the guarantees under the Bill of Rights remain in place during its pendency. And in such instance where the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is also suspended, such suspension applies only to those judicially charged with rebellion or offenses connecied with invasion, POLITICAL LAW; VOID FOR VAGUENESS; APPLICATION TO FREE SPEECH CASES: The void-for-vagueness doctrine holds that a law is facially invalid if "men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application." "[A] statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that ‘men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in its application, [In such instance, the statute] is repugnant to the Constitution in two respects: (1) it violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of the conduct to avoids and (2) it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle." Page 12 of 22Supreme Court Deciep Cases & Oruer Issurs ‘THAT MADE IT TO THE HEADLINES IN YEARS 2018-2018 Justin Ryan D. Morilla Ls Updated on Octber 12,2018, The vagueness doctrine is an analytical tool developed for testing “on their faces” statutes in free speech cases or, as they are called in American law, First Amendment cases. A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and also to one which is overbroad because of possible “chilling effect’ on protected speech that comes from statutes violating free speech. A person who does not know whether his speech constitutes a crime under an overbroad or vague law may simply restrain himself from speaking in order to avoid being charged of a crime. The overbroad or vague law thus chills him into silence." It is best to stress that the vagueness doctrine has a special application only to free-speech cases. They are not appropriate for testing the validity of penal statutes. Clearly review of Proclamation No. 216 on the grounds of vagueness is unwarranted. Proclamation No. 216 docs not regulate speech, religious freedom, and other fundamental rights that may be facially challenged. What it seeks to penalize is conduct, not speech, CRIMINAL LAW; TERRORISM NEITHER NEGATES NOR ABSORBS REBELLION: ‘There is nothing in Art, 134 of the RPC and RA 9372 which states that rebellion and terrorism are ‘mutuallty exclusive of each other or that they cannot co-exist together. RA 9372 does not expressly or impliedly repeal Art, 134 of the RPC. And while rebellion is one of the predicate crimes of terrorism, one cannot absorb the other as they have different elements. Ombudsman. As envisioned in the Constitution, the fiscal autonomy enjoyed by the Judiciary, the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Audit, the Commission on Elections, and the Office of the Ombudsman contemplates a guarantee of full flexibility to allocate and utilize their resources with the wisdom and dispatch that their needs require, It recognizes the power and authority to levy, assess and collect fees, fix rates of compensation not exceeding the highest rates authorized by law for compensation and pay plans of the government and allocate and disburse such sums as may be provided by law or prescribed by them in the course of the discharge of their functions. BAIL OF JINGGOY ESTRADA September 15, 2017 Note: Sandiganbayan Decision P1000 BUDGET FOR THE CHR September 2017 CHREA y. CHR July 21, 2006 REMEDIAL LAW; QUESTION OF BAIL CAN BE REVISITED: As resolving bail issues is an imterlocutory order, it cannot attain finality. It may change as the circumstances allow. (Macapagal- Arroyo v. Sandiganbayan Case) REMEDIAL LAW; ADMISSION TO BAIL: Although there is evidence to show that there were glaring irregularities in the disbursement of accused Estrada’s PDAF allocations and that he received a sum of money from his participation in. these irregularities, there is no strong evidence to show that he is a main plunderer within the contemplation of the plunder law and as alleged in the Information, admission to bail is in order. POLITICAL LAW; FISCAL AUTONOMY: The 1987 Constitution expressly and unambiguously grants fiscal autonomy only to the Judiciary, the constitutional commissions, and the Office of the FILING OF CASES AGAINST DEPUTY OMBDUSMAN CARANDANG October 2017 Gonzales v. Office of the President Tanuary 28, 2014 POLITICAL LAW; INDEPENDENCE OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN: The mere Page 13 of 22Supreme Court Decivep Cases & Oruer Issurs ‘THAT MADE IT TO THE HEADLINES IN YEARS 2015-2018, Justin Ryan D. Morilla Ls Updated on Octber 12,2018, filing of an administrative case against the Deputy Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor before the OP can already result in their suspension and can interrupt the performance of their functions, in violation of Section 12, Article XI of the Constitution. With only one term allowed under Section 11, a Deputy Ombudsman or Special Prosecutor, if removable by the President, can be reduced to the very same ineffective Office of the Ombudsman that the framers had foreseen and carefully tried to avoid by making these offices independent constitutional bodies ARREST OF SENATOR DE LIMA De Lima v. Guerrero ‘Separate Concurring Opinion of J. Del Castillo October 10, 2017 REMEDIAL LAW; JURISDICTION OF RT Petitioner is being charged with conspiring to engage in trading of illegal drugs, a case that is cognizable by und within the jurisdiction of the RTC. The mention in the Information of the phrases "taking advantage of public office" and *with the use of their power, position, and authority", vis-a-vis the rest of the allegations in the Information, does not wrest from the RTC its jurisdiction over the case. To my mind, said phrases were mentioned specifically to highlight the fact that some of the personalities involved are public officials, in view of the fact that Section 28 of RA 9165 specifically deals with the "criminal liability of government officials and employees" and provides for the imposition of the ‘maximum penalties if the violators were government officials and employees. By their being government officials and employees, their liability is aggravated and would necessitate the imposition of the ‘maximum penalty, pursuant to Section 28. REMEDIAL LAW; JURISDICTION OF SANDIGANBAYAN: The mere fact that the salary grade corresponding to the position of a Secretary of Justice is within the ambit of the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction does not necessarily ‘mean that said court should take cognizance of the case, It must be stressed that itis not the salary grade that determines which court should hear or has jurisdiction over the case: itis the nature thereof and the allegations in the Information. RA 9165 specifically vested with the RTC the jurisdiction over illegal drugs cases. On the other hand, the Sandiganbayan was specially constituted as the anti-graft court. And since petitioner is being charged with conspiring in trading of illegal drugs, and not with any offense involving graft, it is erystal clear that it is the RTC which has jurisdiction over the matter as well as over the person of the petitioner. REMEDIAL LAW; EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES: Petitioner has several available remedies to take before resort is made to this Court As enumerated in the Separate Concurring Opinion of Justice Peralta, the following options were available to petitioner: "1) filing of counter-affidavit with an alternative prayer for referral of the case to the Ombudsman; 2) filing a motion for re- investigation before the information is filed in court; 3) filing of a motion for leave of court to file a motion for re-investigation if an information has been filed; 4) filing of a motion for judicial determination of probable cause; 5) motion for bill of particulars; and 6) motion to quash warrant of arrest.” Unfortunately, petitioner did not opt to avail of any of these remedies before bringing her suit to the Court of last resort. Petitioner's claim, that it was pointless for her to avail of any of these remedies, not only lacks basis but also strikes at the very core of our judicial system. Rules are basically promulgated for the orderly administration of justice. The remedies chosen by the parties must be in accordance with the established rules and should not depend on their whims. REMEDIAL LAW; FORUM SHOPPING; PREMATURITY: Petitioner is guilty of forum shopping; the petition suffers from prematurity. The instant Petition was filed before this Court despite the pendency of the motion to quash before respondent Judge. Suffice it to say that between the motion to Page 14 of 22Supreme Court Decivep Cases & Orer Issurs ‘THAT MADE IT TO THE HEADLINES IN YEARS 2018-2018 Justin Ryan D. Morilla Ls Updated on Octber 12,2018, quash and the instant Petition, there is identity of parties; the prayers in the two suits are similar; and the resolution of one will result in res judicata to the other. GRAFT AND USURPATION OF AUTHORITY CHARGES AGAINST P-NOY November 2017, CRIMINAL LAW; CORRUPT PRACTICES: Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful: (a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority oran offense in connection with the official duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such offense. CRIMINAL LAW; _USURPATION OF AUTHORITY: Article 177. Usurpation of authority or official functions.- Any person who shall knowingly and falsely represent himself to be an officer, agent or representative of any department or agency of the Philippine Government or of any foreign government, or who, under pretense of official position, shall perform any act any person in authority or public offic Philippine Government or any foreign government, or any agency thereof, without being lawfully entitled to do so, shall suffer the penalty of prision correecional in its minimum and medium periods. commit terrorist acts by any means, directly or indirectly, unlawfully and willfully; (2) participates, as a principal or as an accomplice, in terrorist acts; (3) organizes or directs others to commit terrorist acts; or (4) contributes to the commission of terrorist acts by a group of persons acting with a common purpose where the contribution is made intentionally and with the aim of furthering the terrorist act or with the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit a terrorist act, CRIMINAL LAW; PROSCRIPTION OF TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS: RA 9372, SEC. 17. Any organization, association, or group of persons organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism, or which, although not organized for that purpose, actually uses the acts to terrorize mentioned in this Act or to sow and create a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand shall, upon application of the Department of Justice before a competent Regional Trial Court, with due notice and opportunity to be heard given to the organization, association, or group of persons concemed, be declared as a terrorist and outlawed organization, association, or group of persons by the said Regional Trial Court PH WITHDRAWAL FROM INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT March 17, 2018 PROCLAMATION NO. 374 DECLARING CPP-NPA AS TERRORIST ORGANIZATION December 5, 2017 CRIMINAL LAW; TERRORIST: RA 10168, Section 3 (i) Terrorist refers to any natural person who: (1) commits, or attempts, of conspires to POLITICAL LAW; WITHDRAWAL FROM ROME STATUTE: Article 127. Withdrawal 1. A State Party may, by written notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, withdraw from this Statute. The withdrawal shall take effect one year after the date of receipt of the notification, unless the notification specifies a later date. Page 15 of 22,Supreme Court Decivep Cases & Oruer Issuzs ‘THAT MADE IT TO THE HEADLINES IN YEARS 2018-2018 Justin Ryan D. Morilla Ls Update on Octber 12,2018, 2. A State shall not be discharged, by reason of its withdrawal, from the obligations arising from this Statute while it was a Party to the Statute, including any financial obligations which may have accrued. Its withdrawal shall not affect any cooperation with the Court in connection with criminal investigations and proceedings in relation to which the withdrawing State had a duty to cooperate and which were commenced prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective, nor shall it prejudice in any Way the continued consideration of any matter which was already under consideration by the Court prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective. BORACAY SHUTDOWN April 2018 In The Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), et al. v. Yap, et al. and Sacay, et al. v. the Secretary of the DENR, et al., the Supreme Court ruled that the entire island of Boracay is state-owned except for lands already covered by existing titles. Therefore, the island, being owned by the State, can only be declared or made subject’ of private ownership by the Government. And only the Government can determine the manner in which the island should be disposed of or conveyed to private individuals, pursuant to the Regalian Doctrine. UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF DOJ CIRCULAR NO. 241 Genuino v. De Lima April 17, 2018 POLITICAL LAW; LIMITATIONS TO POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW: Like almost all powers conferred by the Constitution, the power of judicial review is subject to limitations, to wit: (1) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power: (2) the person challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity of the subject act or issuance; otherwise stated, he must have a personal and substantial interest im the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement; (3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case. POLITICAL LAW; LIMITATIONS ON RIGHT. ‘TO TRAVEL: Itis apparent, however, that the right to travel is not absolute, There are constitutional, statutory and inherent limitations regulating the right to travel. Section 6 itself provides that the right to travel may be impaired only in the interest of national security, public safety or public health, as may be provided by law. POLITICAL LAW; COMPLETENESS AND SUFFICIENT STANDARD TEST: It is, however, important to stress that before there can even be a valid administrative issuance, there must first be a showing that the delegation of legislative power is itself valid. It is valid only if there is a law that (a) is complete in itself, setting forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out, or implemented by the delegate: and (b) fixes a standard the limits of which are sufficiently determinate and determinable to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions. POLITICAL LAW; POLICE POWER; VALID EXERCISE: Police power pertains to the "state authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare." "It may be said to be that inherent and plenary power in the State which enables it to all things hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society. "Verily, the exercise of this power is primarily lodged with the legislature but may be wielded by the President and administrative boards, as well as the lawmaking bodies on al] municipal levels, including the barangay, by virtue of a valid delegation of power. Page 16 of 22,‘Supreme Court Decivep Cases & Oruer Issurs ‘THAT MADE IT TO THE HEADLINES IN YEARS 2015-2018, Justin Ryan D. Morilla Upsaie on Occber 12,2018, It bears noting, however, that police power may only be validly exercised if (a) the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require the interference of the State, and () the means employed are reasonably necessary to the altainment of the object sought to be accomplished and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. REMEDIAL LAW; POWER OF THE COURTS ‘TO ISSUE HDO: It bears reiterating that the power to issue HDO is inherent to the courts. The courts may issue a HDO against an accused in a criminal case so that he may be dealt with in accordance with law. It does not require legislative conferment or constitutional recognition; it co-exists with the grant of judicial power. EXECUTIVE ORDER 51 PROHIBITION AGAINST ILLEGAL CONTRACTING AND SUBCONTRACTING May 2018, LABOR LAW; SECURITY OF TENURE: Security of Tenure refers to the right of employees not to be dismissed or removed without just or authorized cause and observance of procedural due process consistent with the Constitution, Labor Code, as amended, and prevailing jurisprudence. LABOR LAW; __VISITORIAL = AND ENFORCEMENT POWER OF DOLE: Art. 128. Visitorial and enforcement power. a. The Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives, including, labor regulation officers, shalll have access to employer's records and premises at any time of the day or night whenever work is being, undertaken therein, and the right to copy therefrom, to question any employee and investigate_any fact, condition or matter which may be necessary to determine violations or which may aid in the Page 17 of 22 enforcement of this Code and of any labor law, wage order or rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto. Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 129 and 217 of this Code to the contrary, and in cases where the relationship of employer- employee still exists, the Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives shall have the power to issue compliance orders to give effect to the labor standards provisions of this Code and other labor legislation based on the findings of labor employment and enforcement officers or industrial safety engineers made in the course of inspection. The Secretary or his duly authorized representatives shall issue writs of execution to the appropriate authority for the enforcement of their orders, except in cases where the employer contests the findings of the labor employment and enforcement officer and raises issues supported by documentary proofs which were not considered in the course of inspection. (As amended by Republic Act No. 7730, June 2, 1994). An order issued by the duly authorized representative of the Secretary of Labor and Employment under this Article may be appealed to the latter. In case said order involves a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Secretary of Labor and Employment in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the order appealed from. (As amended by Republic Act No. 7730, June 2, 1994) The Secretary of Labor and Employment may likewise order stoppage of work or suspension of operations of any unit or department of an establishment when non- complianee with the law or implementingSupreme Court Deciep Cases & Oruer Issues ‘THAT MADE IT TO THE HEADLINES IN YEARS 2018-2018 Justin Ryan D. Morilla Ls Update on Octber 12,2018, rules and regulations poses grave and imminent danger to the health and safety of workers in the workplace. Within twenty- four hours, a hearing shall be conducted to determine whether an order for the stoppage of work or suspension of operations shall be ified or not. In case the violation is attributable to the fault of the employer, he shall pay the employees concerned their salaries or wages during the period of such stoppage of work or suspension of operation. It shall be unlawful for any person or entity to obstruct, impede, delay or otherwise render ineffective the orders of the Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives issued pursuant to the authority granted under this Article, and no inferior court or entity shall issue temporary or permanent injunction or restraining order or otherwise assume jurisdiction over any case involving the enforcement orders issued in accordance with this Article . Any government employee found guilty of violation of, or abuse of authority, under this, Article shall, after appropriate administrative investigation, be subject to summary dismissal from service. The Secretary of Labor and Employment may, by appropriate regulations, require employers to keep and maint such employment records as may be necessary in aid of his visitorial and enforcement powers under this Code, QUO WARRANTO AGAINST A CHIEF JUSTICE Republic v. Sereno May 11, 2018 Dissenting Opinion of J. Del Castillo POLITICAL LAW; MODE OF REMOVAL OF IMPEACHABLE OFFICERS: The only “exclusivity” that may be reasonably read from the wording of Section 2, Article XT of the Constitution is the list of impeachable officers and the grounds for which they may be impeached. This "exclusivity" is deducible, not from the use of the word "may." but from the enumeration of the officers and the grounds, following the rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius in statutory construction. XXX Had the framers intended to restrict the mode of removal from office of the enumerated public officers only to impeachment in the first sentence of Section 2, they would have adopted a. similar categorical and unequivocal language as they did in the second sentence of Section 2 and in Section 3. believe that their deliberate omission to do so is a strong indication that the framers recognized other modes by which impeachable public officers may be removed from office. POLITICAL LAW; REMEDIAL LAW; QUO WARRANTO — AGAINST — ELECTIVE IMPEACHABLE OFFICERS: The Court's quo warranto jurisdiction over elective impeachable officials obtains, not on the basis of the general grant of jurisdiction under Section 5(1), Article VIII of the Constitution, but on the specific grant under the last paragraph of Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution. Given this specific constitutional ‘mandate, there is practically no discretion left for the Court but to assume jurisdiction over quo warranto petitions against (and only against) this particular class of impeachuble officials. POLITICAL LAW; REMEDIAL LAW; QUO WARRANTO — AGAINST —_APPOINTIVE IMPEACHABLE OFFICERS: With particular regard to appointive impeachable officers, it is my humble submission that guo warranto petitions against them threaten the constitutionally-decreed independence of their offices. While the Constitution Page 18 of 22,Supreme Court Decivep Cases & Oruer Issurs ‘THAT MADE IT TO THE HEADLINES IN YEARS 2015-2018, Justin Ryan D. Morilla Ls Updated on Octber 12,2018, has granted this Court general jurisdiction over quo warranto petitions, this jurisdiction may not be asserted against appointive impeachable officers without compromising institutional independence which is intended to uphold core constitutional principles and values. REMEDIAL LAW; PRESCRIPTION: It is therefore clear that the grant to the SolGen of unrestricted and imprescriptible power to institute quo warranio petitions against appointive impeachable officers poses serious risks to the independence of constitutional offices declared to be independent. In Bengcon v. Drilon, we ruled that [t]he judiciary, the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman must have the independence and flexibility needed in the discharge of their constitutional duties." They "should be free to act as their conscience demands, without fear of Rretaliation or hope [of] reward.” With the SolGen wielding a quo warranto sword of Damocles over the heads of these officers, the Filipino people cannot be assured that they will discharge their constitutional mandate and functions without fear or favor. Without such assurance, there can be no guarantee that the primordial interest of the sovereign people is promoted. POLITICAL LAW; REVIEW OF QUALIFICATIONS OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICES: In constituting the PET, the JBC, and the ComAppt, the framers of the Constitution intended that there be a “vetting agency" in charge of reviewing the eligibility and qualifications of those elected as President and Vice-President, and those appointed to the other constitutional offices. The determination of an elected candidate or an appointee's eligibility and qualification is therefore primarily a function that the Constitution decreed is to be discharged by the PET, the JBC, and the ComAppt. POLITICAL LAW; GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT; INELIGIBILITY FOR OFFICE: Nevertheless, it is neither improbable nor illogical to suppose that a public officer's ineligibility for office (whether. for lack of qualification or possession of grounds for disqualification) can be considered an act which constitutes an impeachable offense. The ponencia itself recognizes this. Although "culpable violation.of the Constitution,” “other high crimes," and "betrayal of public trust" escape precise definitions, their common denominators that they "obviously pertain to fitness for public office.” Thus, it can be said that a public officer who does not possess the minimum constitutional qualifications for the office commits a violation of the Constitution that he/she has sworn to uphold or, at the very least, betrays the public trust when he/she assumes the position without the requisite eligibility. Impeachment then becomes the mode by which we exact accountability from the public officer who assumes a constitutional office notwithstanding his/her ineligibility. POLITICAL LAW; PRIMARY JURISDICTION: The matter of the respondent's ineligibility is already before the Congress as one of the charges in the Articles of Impeachment. The House Committee on Justice overwhelmingly ruled, by a vote of 33-1, in favor of finding probable cause to impeach the respondent. The Articles of Impeachment have been transmitted tthe Committee on Rules so that the matter may be calendared and submitted to the plenary for its vote. That it is speculative whether the respondent may be held accountable because no impeachment has yet taken place is beside the point. The impeachment proceeding has commenced, and Congress has taken cognizance thereof with its finding of probable cause. Thus, it behooves this Court to exercise judicial restraint and accord respect to the processes, that the Constitution has lodged within the powers of a co-equal department. The — impeachment proceedings should be allowed to take its due course. Page 19 of 22Supreme Court Deciep Cases & Oruer Issurs ‘THAT MADE IT TO THE HEADLINES IN YEARS 2015-2018 Justin Ryan D. Morilla Ls Update on Octber 12,2018, ACQUITTAL OF IMELDA MARCOS IN CASE FOR DOLLAR SALTING Chavez ¥. Marcos June 27, 2018 REMEDIAL LAW; LEGAL ETHICS; INHIBITION: Whether or not to voluntarily inhibit from hearing a case is a matter within the judge's discretion. Absent clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the judge will dispense justice in accordance with law and evidence, the Supreme Court will not interfere, REVOCATION OF RAPPLER’S REGISTRATION Rappler y. SEC July 26, 2018 Note: CA Decision POLITICAL LAW; OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT OF MASS MEDIA: Article XVI, Section 11 L.The ownership and management of mass media shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations, cooperatives or associations, wholly- owned and managed by such citizens. The Congress shall regulate or prohibit monopolies in commercial mass media when the public interest so requires. No combinations in restraint of trade or unfair competition therein shall be allowed. POLITICAL LAW; MASS MEDIA: Pursuant to RA 9211, Rappler is engaged in the business of mass media and by its actuations effectively admit that it is subject to the foreign equity restriction under Section 11(1), Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution, POLITICAL LAW; COMMERCIAL LAW; FOREIGN EQUITY RESTRICTION; VOTING CONTROL TEST: The term capital in Section I1, Article XII of the Constitution refers only shares of stock entitled to vote in the election of directors and not to the total outstanding capital stock comprising both common and non-voting shares. (Gamboa v, Teves) POLITICAL LAW; COMMERCIAL LAW; FOREIGN EQUITY RESTRICTION; FULL BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP TEST: Mere legal title is not enough 10 meet the required Filipino equity, which means that it is not sufficient that a share is registered in the name of a Filipino citizen or national, ie, he should also have full beneficial ownership of the share. If the voting right of a share held in the name of a Filipino citizen or national is assigned or transferred to an alien, that share is not to be counted in the determination of the required Filipino equity. In the same vein, ifthe dividends and other fruits and accessions of the share do not accrue toa Filipino citizen or national, then that share is also to be excluded or not counted. (Roy v. Herbosa) POLITICAL LAW; COMMERCIAL LAW; FOREIGN EQUITY RESTRICTION: It bears stressing that the foreign equity restriction on mass media implics “zero” foreign control. It thus includes any appearance of control that will influence the corporate actions and decisions of Rappler, Also, it does not matter whether the approval of Omidyar is required only when the actions taken by Rappler will prejudice the rights of Omidyar, because RHC will still nonetheless be required to secure the approval of at least 2/3 of the PDR Holders before Rappler can carry out or implement any action which has the effect of altering, modifying or otherwise changing Rappler’s Articles of Incorporation or By-laws or take any other action where such alteration, modification, change or action will prejudice the rights in relation to the Omidyar PDR. COMMERCIAL LAW; NEGATIVE COVENANT: A negative covenant is defined as “a covenant that requires a party to refrain from doing something.” POLITICAL LAW; COMMERCIAL LAW; WAIVER AND DONATION OF OMIDYAR PDR: Thus, itis incumbent upon the SEC to evaluate Page 20 of 22Supreme Court Decivep Cases & Orer Issurs ‘THAT MADE IT TO THE HEADLINES IN YEARS 2018-2018 Justin Ryan D. Morilla Ls Update on Octber 12,2018, the terms and conditions of said alleged supervening donation and its legal effect, particularly, whether the the effect of mitigating, if not curing, the violation it found petitioners to have committed. If so, this may warrant a re-examination of the sanction r of petitioners’ Certificates of Incorporation imposed by the SEC En Bane in the assailed Decision. REVOCATION OF TRILLANES’ AMNESTY COVERAGE, August 2018 POLITICAL LAW; CRIMINAL LAW; AMNESTY: Amnesty commonly denotes a general pardon to rebels for their treason or other high political offenses, or the forgiveness which one sovereign grants to the subjects of another, who have offended, by some breach, the law of nations. Amnesty looks backward, and abolishes and puts into oblivion, the offense itself; it so overlooks and obliterates the offense with which he is charged, that the person released by amnesty stands before the law precisely as though he had committed no offense, (People v. Patriarca) POLITICAL LAW; CRIMINAL LAW; AMNESTY; ADMISSION OF GUILT: Amnesty presupposes the commission of a crime, and when an accused maintains that he has not committed a crime, he cannot have any use for amnesty. Where an amnesty proclamation imposes certain conditions, as in this case, itis incumbent upon the accused to prove the existence of such conditions. The invocation of amnesty is in the nature of a plea of confession and avoidance, which means that the pleader admits the allegations against him but disclaims liability therefor on account of intervening facts which, if proved, would being the crime charged within the scope of the amnesty proclamation, (People v. Llanita, et al and People v. Guillermo, et al.) POLITICAL LAW; CRIMINAL LAW; AMNESTY AND PARDON: Pardon is granted by the Chief Executive and as such it is a private act which must be pleaded and proved by the person pardoned, because the courts take no notice thereo!; while amnesty by Proclamation of the Chief Executive with the concurrence of Congress, and it isa public act of which the courts should take judicial notice. Pardon is granted to one after conviction; while amnesty is granted to classes of persons or communities who may be guilty of political offenses, generally before or after the institution of the criminal prosecution and sometimes after conviction, Pardon looks forward and relieves the offender from the consequences of an offense of which he has been convicted, that is, it abolished or forgives the punishment, and for that reason it does "nor work the restoration of the rights to hold public office, or the right of suffrage, unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon," and it "in no case exempts the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence” article 36, Revised Penal Code). while amnesty looks backward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself, it so overlooks and obliterates the offense with which he is charged that the person released by amnesty stands before the law precisely as though he had committed no offense. (section 10{6), Article VII, Philippine Constitution; State vs. Blalock, 62 N.C., 242, 247; In re Briggs, 135 N.C, 118; 47 S.E, 402., 403; Ex parte Law, 35 GA., 285, 296; State ex rel Anheuser—Busch Brewing Ass'n. vs. Eby, 170 Mo., 497; 71 S.W 52, 61; Burdick vs United States, N-Y., 35 S. Ct., 267; 271; 236 U.S., 79; 59 Law. ed., 476.) CRIMINAL LAW; REBELLION: | Article 134. Rebellion or insurrection; How commited. - The crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the Government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the territory of the Philippine Islands or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or other armed forces, depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives. (As amended by R.A. 6968). Page 21 of 22Supreme Court Deciep Cases & Oruer Issuzs ‘THAT MADE IT TO THE HEADLINES IN YEARS 2015-2018, Justin Ryan D. Morilla Ls Updated on Octber 12,2018, CRIMINAL LAW; COUP D’ ETAT: Article 134- A. Coup d'etat; How committed. - The crime of coup detat is a swift attack accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, directed against duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, or any military camp or installation, communications network, public Utilities or other facilities needed for the exereise and continued possession of power, singly or simultaneously carried out anywhere in the Philippines by any person or persons, belonging to the military or police or holding any public office of employment with or without civilian support or participation for the purpose of seizing or diminishing state power. (As amended by R.A. 6968). CONVICTION OF JOVITO PALPARAI September 2018 CRIMINAL LAW; KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION: Aricle 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. - Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death: |. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than five days. 2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority. 3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been made, 4. If the person ‘kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, female or a public officer. The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances above-mentioned were present in the commission of the offense. Page 22 of 22