11/01/2022

JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN’S CASES ON

POLITICAL LAW: A LECTURE FOR 2021
BAR EXAMINATION

JUDGE GENER M. GITO, LL.M., D.C.L.

Presiding Judge, RTC-Branch 206, Muntinlupa City
Professorial Lecturer I, PhilJa
Member, Criminal Law Department PhilJa

Locsin vs. HRET,

G.R. No. 204123, March 19, 2013
 Petitioner Locsin and private respondent Lagdameo,
along with three other candidates, vied for the
position to represent the First Legislative District of
Makati in the 2010 national elections. Respondent
Lagdameo was proclaimed winner by the City Board
of Canvassers on 11 May 2010 garnering 42,102
votes. Petitioner came in second with 41,860 votes or
a losing margin of 242 votes.

1
 11/01/2022

Locsin vs. HRET,

G.R. No. 204123, March 19, 2013
 PetitionerLocsin instituted an election protest before
the HRET impugning the election results in all 233
clustered precincts in Makati's First District.
Petitioner alleged that the results were tainted by
election fraud, anomalies, and irregularities. On 2 July
2010, Lagdameo filed her Answer with Counter-
Protest questioning the results in 123 clustered
precincts.

Locsin vs. HRET,

G.R. No. 204123, March 19, 2013
 After due proceedings, the HRET dismissed the
protest of Locsin.
 Locsin filed a Petition for Certiorari against the HRET
on the ground that HRET committed grave abuse of
discretion in dismissing the protest.
 Who is the sole judge of all contest relating to
election, returns and qualification of the
members of the house of representatives?

2
 11/01/2022

Locsin vs. HRET,

G.R. No. 204123, March 19, 2013
 HRET shall be the "sole judge of all contests relating
to the election, returns, and qualifications of their
respective members.
 Thus, this Court's jurisdiction to review HRET's
decisions and orders is exercised only upon showing
that the HRET acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Otherwise, this Court shall not interfere with the
HRET's exercise of its discretion or jurisdiction.

Alliance for Rural and Agrarian Reconstruction

(ARARO) vs. Commission on Election,
G.R. No. 192803, December 10, 2013
 The issue in this case is this case is: Should all votes
cast for party-list candidates be included in the divisor?
 We qualify that the divisor to be used in interpreting the
formula used in BANAT is the total votes cast for the party-list
system. This should not include the invalid votes. However, so
as not to disenfranchise a substantial portion of the electorate,
total votes cast for the party-list system should mean all the
votes validly cast for all the candidates listed in the ballot. The
voter relies on the ballot when making his or her choices.

3
 11/01/2022

Alliance for Rural and Agrarian Reconstruction

(ARARO) vs. Commission on Election,
G.R. No. 192803, December 10, 2013
 BANAT manner of allocation of seats:
 1. The party list shall be rank from highest to lowest based on
the vote they gathered.Their votes shall be totaled.
 2. Determine which party-lists obtained 2% of the party-list
votes. This is arrived at by dividing the number of votes
garnered by each party by the total number of votes cast for
all party-list candidates. A party-list which obtained at least 2%
of the party-list vote shall be entitled to one (1) seat.
 The remaining available party-list seats shall be allocated by the
percentage is multiplying the percentage votes of the party list
by the remaining available seats.

Republic vs. Ortigas,

G.R. No. 171496, March 3, 2014
 Upon the request of the Department of Public Works and
Highways, respondent Ortigas caused the segregation of its
property into five lots and reserved one portion for road
widening for the C-5 flyover project. It designated Lot 5-B-2-
A, a 1,445-square-meter portion of its property, for the road
widening of Ortigas Avenue. However, only 396 square meters
of the 1,445-square-meter allotment for the project was
utilized.
 Ortigas filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig a petition
for authority to sell to the government the portion used for
C-5 project.

4
 11/01/2022

Republic vs. Ortigas,

G.R. No. 171496, March 3, 2014
 The government argued that subject property may not be
conveyed to the government through modes other than by
donation. It relies on Section 50 of the Property Registration
Decree
 Should the government be required to pay Ortigas?
 Yes. Section 50 contemplates roads and streets in a subdivided
property, not public thoroughfares built on a private property
that was taken from an owner for public purpose. A public
thoroughfare is not a subdivision road or street.

Republic vs. Ortigas,

G.R. No. 171496, March 3, 2014
 Since there is taking of private property for some public purpose, the
owner of the property taken is entitled to be compensated.
 There is taking here:
 1. The government must enter the private property;
 2. The entrance into the private property must be indefinite or
permanent;
 3. There is color of legal authority in the entry into the property;
 4. The property is devoted to public use or purpose;
 5. The use of property for public use removed from the owner all
beneficial enjoyment of the property.

5
 11/01/2022

City of General Santos vs. COA

G.R. No. 199439, April 22, 2014
 This case involves the constitutionality of the an
ordinance of the City Government of General Santos,
providing for early retirement package for qualified
regular employees of the city government. The COA
disallowed the payment of the retirement benefits as it
violates the law which prohibits the establishment of
additional retirement benefits for government employees.
Under the ordinance, those qualified employees shall be
entitled to 1.5 month for every year of service.

City of General Santos vs. COA

G.R. No. 199439, April 22, 2014
 The SC ruled that while the LGUs have the prerogative to
implement re-organization its organizational set-up.

 “Designing and implementing a local government unit's own

"organizational structure and staffing pattern" also implies the
power to revise and reorganize. Without such power, local
governments will lose the ability to adjust to the needs of its
constituents. Effective and efficient governmental services
especially at the local government level require rational and
deliberate changes planned and executed in good faith from
time to time.”

6
 11/01/2022

City of General Santos vs. COA

G.R. No. 199439, April 22, 2014
 However, the LGU cannot grant retirement benefits to those who are
affected by reorganization outside of the law granting retirement
benefits to government employees.

 “Section 5 states that "an eligible employee shall receive an early

retirement incentive provided under this program at the rate of 1 1/2
months of the employee's latest basic salary for every year of service
in the City Government." This may be more than the amount of
annuity provided in Section 11, paragraph (a) of Commonwealth Act
No. 186 as amended, 73 considering that an applicant must have
rendered at least 15 years of service in the city government to qualify.”

People vs. Cogaed

G.R. No. 200334, July 30, 2014
 The police authorities received a text message from an “unidentified civilian
informer,” one Marvin Buya (also known as Marvin Bugat) "[would] be
transporting marijuana" from Barangay Lun-Oy, San Gabriel, La Union to the
Poblacion of San Gabriel, La Union. Because of this information, the police
authorities set up a check point.
 A passenger jeepney checkpoint. The jeepney driver disembarked and
signalled to the police officer indicating the two male passengers who were
carrying marijuana. The police officer approached the two male passengers
who were later identified as Cogaed and Sacpa Dayao. Cogaed was carrying
a blue bag and a sack while Dayao was holding a yellow bag. They were
asked to open the bag where they discovered that the same contained
bricks of marijuana.The police authorities arrested the accused

7
 11/01/2022

People vs. Cogaed

G.R. No. 200334, July 30, 2014
 Is the arrest search and arrest valid? NO.
 Cogaed was simply a passenger carrying a bag and traveling aboard a
jeepney. There was nothing suspicious, moreover, criminal, about riding a
jeepney or carrying a bag. The assessment of suspicion was not made by
the police officer but by the jeepney driver. It was the driver who
signaled to the police that Cogaed was "suspicious.” It is the police
officer who should observe facts that would lead to a reasonable degree
of suspicion of a person. The police officer should not adopt the
suspicion initiated by another person. This is necessary to justify that the
person suspected be stopped and reasonably searched.Anything less than
this would be an infringement upon one's basic right to security of one's
person and effects.

People vs. Cogaed

G.R. No. 200334, July 30, 2014
 Police officers must not rely on a single suspicious
circumstance. There should be "presence of more than
one seemingly innocent activity, which, taken together,
warranted a reasonable inference of criminal activity."
The Constitution prohibits "unreasonable searches and
seizures." Certainly, reliance on only one suspicious
circumstance or none at all will not result in a
reasonable search.

8
 11/01/2022

People vs. Cogaed

G.R. No. 200334, July 30, 2014
 The arrest of Cogaed will likewise not fall under Section 5, Rule 113.
 At the time of his apprehension, Cogaed has not committed, was not
committing, or was about to commit a crime. “Two elements must
concur for a valid in flagrante delicto arrest: (1) the person to be
arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime;
and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of
the arresting officer." Both elements were missing when Cogaed was
arrested. There were no overt acts within plain view of the police
officers that suggested that Cogaed was in possession of drugs at that
time.

People vs. Cogaed

G.R. No. 200334, July 30, 2014
 The known jurisprudential instances of reasonable warrantless
searches and seizures are:
 1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest . . .;
 2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view," . . .;
 3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, the vehicle's
inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit
in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to
probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity;
 4. Consented warrantless search;
 5. Customs search;
 6. Stop and frisk; and
 7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.

9
 11/01/2022

People vs. Cogaed

G.R. No. 200334, July 30, 2014
 What is the difference between search incidental to lawful
arrest and “stop and frisk arrest?”
 Searches incidental to a lawful arrest require that a crime be
committed in flagrante delicto, and the search conducted within the
vicinity and within reach by the person arrested is done to ensure that
there are no weapons, as well as to preserve the evidence.
 “Stop and frisk" searches are conducted to prevent the occurrence of
a crime. "Stop and frisk" searches (sometimes referred to as Terry
searches) are necessary for law enforcement. That is, law enforcers
should be given the legal arsenal to prevent the commission of
offenses.

People vs. Cogaed

G.R. No. 200334, July 30, 2014
 What are the requisites for a valid waiver of right?
 For a valid waiver by the accused of his or her constitutional right, it is
not sufficient that the police officer introduce himself or herself, or be
known as a police officer. The police officer must also inform the
person to be searched that any inaction on his or her part will amount
to a waiver of any of his or her objections that the circumstances do
not amount to a reasonable search. The police officer must
communicate this clearly and in a language known to the person who
is about to waive his or her constitutional rights. There must be an
assurance given to the police officer that the accused fully understands
his or her rights.

10
 11/01/2022

Sameer vs. Cabiles

G.R. No. 170139, August 4, 2014
 Section 10 of RA 8042 provides:
 “In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or
authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the workers shall be
entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of
twelve (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of
his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of
the unexpired term, whichever is less.”
 This paragraph of Section 10 was declared unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court in Serrano v. Gallant (601 Phil. 245) for violating the
equal protection clause and substantive due process.

Sameer vs. Cabiles

G.R. No. 170139, August 4, 2014
 RA 10022 which amended RA 8042 reinstated the provision which was
declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
 Can Congress validly reenact a law which was previously
declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?
 Congress cannot.
 “When a law or a provision of law is null because it is inconsistent with
the Constitution, the nullity cannot be cured by reincorporation or
reenactment of the same or a similar law or provision. A law or provision
of law that was already declared unconstitutional remains as such unless
circumstances have so changed as to warrant a reverse conclusion.”

11
 11/01/2022

Sameer vs. Cabiles

G.R. No. 170139, August 4, 2014
 The assailed provision is unconstitutional for violation of equal
protection clause of the Constitution.
 A reasonable classification "(1) must rest on substantial distinctions; (2)
must be germane to the purposes of the law; (3) must not be limited to
existing conditions only; and (4) must apply equally to all members of the
same class."
 In this case, there is no substantial distinction between local workers
with fixed employment and overseas contract workers. Likewise, there is
no substantial distinction between OFW with employment contract for
not more 12 months and OFW with employment contract of more than
12 months.

Sameer vs. Cabiles

G.R. No. 170139, August 4, 2014
 Thus, the distinction being not substantial, the consequent
effect is violation of equal protection of the law.
 The challenged provision also violates Section 3, Article XIII of
the Constitution on protection to labor. Under the
Constitution, labor is afforded special protection. Thus, this
court in Serrano, "[i]mbued with the same sense of 'obligation
to afford protection to labor,' . . . employ[ed] the standard of
strict judicial scrutiny, for it perceive[d] in the subject clause a
suspect classification prejudicial to OFWs."

12
 11/01/2022

Sameer vs. Cabiles

G.R. No. 170139, August 4, 2014
 “Putting a cap on the money claims of certain overseas
workers does not increase the standard of protection
afforded to them. On the other hand, foreign employers
are more incentivized by the reinstated clause to enter
into contracts of at least a year because it gives them
more flexibility to violate our overseas workers' rights.
Their liability for arbitrarily terminating overseas workers
is decreased at the expense of the workers whose rights
they violated.”

Buena vs. Benito

G.R. No. 181760, October 14, 2014
 The Governor of ARMM appointed Benito as Assistant
Division Superintendent of the Department of Education,
Division of Lanao del Sur-I. His appointment was submitted
to the Regional Office of DepEd for confirmation. RD Buena
of the Regional Office of DepEd denied confirmation of the
appointment of Benito on the ground that he is ineligible to
the position for lack of career executive service eligibility.
Despite the letter of the Governor, the RD stood pat to
deny the confirmation of the appointment of Benito.

13
 11/01/2022

Buena vs. Benito

G.R. No. 181760, October 14, 2014
 Benito filed a Petition for Mandamus before the RTC to
compel the CSC to confirm the appointment of Buena.
The Petition was granted by the RTC. Buena appealed to
CA but the appeal was dismissed for failure of the CSC to
file Appeal Memorandum. Buena elevated to the case to
Supreme Court.
 The issue is whether or not Benito possesses the
required qualification for the position.

Buena vs. Benito

G.R. No. 181760, October 14, 2014
 The following criteria to determine whether a position
belongs to the Career Executive Service:
 1. The position is career;
 2. The position is above division chief; and
 3. The position entails performance of executive and managerial
functions.
 Aside from satisfying the criteria set by the Career Executive
Service Board, the holder of the position must also be a presidential
appointee .

14
 11/01/2022

Buena vs. Benito

G.R. No. 181760, October 14, 2014
 While it is true that under Section 45 of ARMM Basic
Education Act of 2010 passed by the Regional Assembly of
ARMM such qualification is absent for the appointment of
Assistant Division Superintendent in ARMM, such regional law
was not yet existing at the time Benito was appointed.
Consequently, the civil service eligibilities required for positions
in the national government shall likewise be required for
appointments to positions in the Autonomous Region pursuant
to Section 4,Article XVI of RA 9054.

Espiritu vs. Del Rosario

G.R. No. 204964, October 15, 2014
 Del Rosario filed petition before the DAR to have the land covered by
TCT No. T-11809 with an area of 164.7605 hectares exempted from
the coverage of agrarian reform. DAR Secretary Pagdanganan issued
an order granting the application for exemption. Citing Department of
Justice Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990, Secretary Pagdanganan stated
that lands classified as non-agricultural before the enactment of CARP
are beyond its coverage.
 The farmers (Espiritu) file an MR on the Order of Sec. Pagdanganan.
The new Secretary of DAR, Sec. Pagdanganan granted the MR and
placed the landholdings of Del Rosario to the coverage of agrarian
reform.

15
 11/01/2022

Espiritu vs. Del Rosario

G.R. No. 204964, October 15, 2014
 Del Rosario file MR. She contends that she was denied of due process
because the Order of Sec. Pangandaman was sent to an address which
is not reflected as his address in the record. Her MR was denied.
 Del Rosario appealed to the Office of the President (OP) with the
same argument, among others. The OP denied her appeal. She elevated
the matter to the Court of Appeals. The CA granted the petition
contending that Del Rosario was denied of due process as she was
prevented from participating in the proceedings that led to the
issuance of Secretary Pangandaman's order when the notices were
sent to her other address on record.

Espiritu vs. Del Rosario

G.R. No. 204964, October 15, 2014
 Was Del Rosario denied of due process?
 No. When Del Rosario filed her motion for reconsideration assailing
Secretary Pangandaman's order, she was able to completely and
exhaustively present her arguments. The denial of her motion was on
the basis of the merits of her arguments and any other evidence she
was able to present. She was given a fair and reasonable opportunity
to present her side; hence, there was no deprivation of due process.
 Respondent was able to actively participate not only in the
proceedings before the Department of Agrarian Reform, but also on
appeal to the Office of the President and the Court of Appeals.

16
 11/01/2022

Espiritu vs. Del Rosario

G.R. No. 204964, October 15, 2014
 What is the essence of procedural due process?
 The essence of procedural due process is embodied in the basic
requirement of notice and a real opportunity to be heard. In
administrative proceedings, such as in the case at bar, procedural due
process simply means the opportunity to explain one's side or the
opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of. "To be heard" does not mean only verbal arguments in
court; one may be heard also thru pleadings. Where opportunity to be
heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is
no denial of procedural due process.

Espiritu vs. Del Rosario

G.R. No. 204964, October 15, 2014
 Components of procedural due process in administrative
proceedings
 1) the right to actual or constructive notice of the institution of proceedings
which may affect a respondent's legal rights;
 2) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel,
to present witnesses and evidence in one's favor, and to defend one's rights;
 3) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford
a person charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as
impartiality; and
 4) a finding by said tribunal which is supported by substantial evidence
submitted for consideration during the hearing or contained in the records or
made known to the parties affected.

17
 11/01/2022

Diocese of Bacolod vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. 205728, July 21, 2015
 Petitioners hanged a tarpaulin which contains the heading
"Conscience Vote" and lists candidates as either "(Anti-
RH) Team Buhay" with a check mark, or "(Pro-RH) Team
Patay" with an "X" mark. The electoral candidates were
classified according to their vote on the adoption of the
RH Law. Those who voted for the passing of the law were
classified by petitioners as comprising "Team Patay," while
those who voted against it form "Team Buhay."

Diocese of Bacolod vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. 205728, July 21, 2015
 The election officer of Bacolod City ordered the removal of
the said “tarpaulin” for being oversized. COMELEC
Resolution No. 9615 provides for the size requirement of
two feet (2') by three feet (3'). The tarpaulin was not
removed. The Election Officer sent another letter to
removed the tarpaulin otherwise he will be constrained to
file a case against the Bishop of Bacolod City.
 Because of the threat of criminal prosecution, the petitioners
filed Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

18
 11/01/2022

Diocese of Bacolod vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. 205728, July 21, 2015
 The election officer of Bacolod City ordered the removal of the
said “tarpaulin” for being oversized. COMELEC Resolution No.
9615 provides for the size requirement of two feet (2') by three
feet (3'). The tarpaulin was not removed. The Election Officer sent
another letter to removed the tarpaulin otherwise he will be
constrained to file a case against the Bishop of Bacolod City.
 Because of the threat of criminal prosecution, the petitioners filed
Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court on the ground
that their constitutional right to freedom of expression was
violated.

Diocese of Bacolod vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. 205728, July 21, 2015
 Can the COMELEC regulate the expression made by
private citizens?
 NO. Respondents cite the Constitution, laws, and jurisprudence
to support their position that they had the power to regulate the
tarpaulin. However, all of these provisions pertain to candidates
and political parties. Petitioners are not candidates. Neither do
they belong to any political party. COMELEC does not have the
authority to regulate the enjoyment of the preferred right to
freedom of expression exercised by a non-candidate in this case.

19
 11/01/2022

Diocese of Bacolod vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. 205728, July 21, 2015
 The authority of the COMELEC to regulate election propaganda
applies only to candidates and political parties. It does not apply
to private citizens whose freedom to express cannot be curtailed
even during election season.
 While the tarpaulin may influence the success or failure of the
named candidates and political parties, this does not necessarily
mean it is election propaganda. The tarpaulin was not paid for or
posted "in return for consideration" by any candidate, political
party, or party-list group.

Diocese of Bacolod vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. 205728, July 21, 2015
 Is the regulation as to the size of tarpaulin a content based
regulation or content neutral regulation?
 Content-based restraint or censorship refers to restrictions "based
on the subject matter of the utterance or speech." In contrast,
content-neutral regulation includes controls merely on the incidents
of the speech such as time, place, or manner of the speech.
 The regulation as to the size of tarpaulin is a content based
regulation. The tarpaulin content is not easily divorced from the size
of its medium. The form of expression is just as important as the
information conveyed that it forms part of the expression.

20
 11/01/2022

Diocese of Bacolod vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. 205728, July 21, 2015
 Did the COMELEC violate right of petitioners to the
free exercise of their religion?
 NO. The posting of tarpaulin is not a religious expression. The
characterization of whether the act is religious or not does not
solely depend on the one exercising it.
 The characterizations of the religious of their acts are not
conclusive on this court. Certainly, our powers of adjudication
cannot be blinded by bare claims that acts are religious in
nature.

Diocese of Bacolod vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. 205728, July 21, 2015
 The tarpaulin, on its face, "does not convey any religious
doctrine of the Catholic church." That the position of the
Catholic church appears to coincide with the message of
the tarpaulin regarding the RH Law does not, by itself, bring
the expression within the ambit of religious speech. On the
contrary, the tarpaulin clearly refers to candidates classified
under "Team Patay" and "Team Buhay" according to their
respective votes on the RH Law.

21
 11/01/2022

Timbol vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. 206004, February 24, 2015
 Petitioner’s was a candidate for city councilor. His name was
included in the list of nuisance candidates published by the
COMELEC. The election officer summoned the petitioner for
clarificatory hearing wherein he explained that he is not a
nuisance candidate. The explanation was acceptable to the
election officer. In his memorandum, the election officer
recommended that the name of petitioner be removed from
the list of the nuisance candidates. However, his name was
not removed.Worst, his name was not included in the ballot.

Timbol vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. 206004, February 24, 2015
 Petitioner filed a Petition before the COMELEC to have his
name included in the ballot. However, his petition was denied
for being moot and academic considering that the ballots
were already printed. Petitioner’s MR was likewise denied by
the COMELEC en banc. So, he filed a petition for certiorari
before the Supreme Court.
 Did the COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion
for violating petitioner’s right to due process?

22
 11/01/2022

Timbol vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. 206004, February 24, 2015
 YES. Respondent declared petitioner a nuisance
candidate without giving him a chance to explain his
bona fide intention to run for office. Respondent had
already issued Resolution No. 9610 when petitioner
appeared before Election Officer Valencia in a
clarificatory hearing. This was an ineffective
opportunity to be heard.

Timbol vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. 206004, February 24, 2015
 That petitioner was able to file a Petition for inclusion in the
certified list of candidates did not cure the defect in the
issuance of Resolution No. 9610.
 First, he would not have to file the Petition had he been given
an opportunity to be heard in the first place. Second, in the
Minute Resolution dated February 5, 2013, respondent
denied petitioner's Petition on the sole ground that the
printing of ballots had already begun on February 4, 2013.

23
 11/01/2022

Republic vs. Heirs of Hernandez

G.R. No. 175493, March 25, 2015
 Petitioner was not able to deposit the 100% of the
value of the property based on the current relevant
zonal valuation of the BIR pursuant to Section 4, RA
8974. Is the Republic entitled to a writ of possession?
 NO.
 A Writ of Possession may be issued only upon full
compliance with Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8974.

Republic vs. Heirs of Hernandez

G.R. No. 175493, March 25, 2015
 Before the state may expropriate private property for a national
infrastructure project, it must first comply with the requisites in
Republic Act No. 8974.
 Under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8974, the implementing agency
must, upon filing of the expropriation complaint, immediately pay the
property owner an amount equivalent to 100% of the value of the
property based on the current relevant zonal valuation by the Bureau
of Internal Revenue and the value of any improvements or structure
on a replacement cost method. The law further mandates that courts
may issue a Writ of Possession only upon the presentation by the
implementing agency of a certificate of availability of funds.

24
 11/01/2022

RE: REQUEST OF RETIRED SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS

JUSTICES FOR INCREASE/ADJUSTMENT OF THEIR DECEMBER 1998
PENSIONS, A.M. No. 99-7-01-SC. August 18, 2015.]

 What is fiscal autonomy?

 Fiscal autonomy has been defined as "freedom from outside control." It
guarantees full flexibility in the utilization of funds and resources.
 The Judiciary, the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman must
have the independence and flexibility needed in the discharge of their
constitutional duties. The imposition of restrictions and constraints on the
manner the independent constitutional offices allocate and utilize the funds
appropriated for their operations is anathema to fiscal autonomy and
violative not only of the express mandate of the Constitution but especially
as regards the Supreme Court, of the independence and separation of
powers upon which the entire fabric of our constitutional system is based.

PNCC vs. Asiavest Merchant Bankers

G.R. No. 172301, August 19, 2015
 PNCC entered construction contract with the State of Panang, Malaysia. In
relation to the said contract, Asiavest, a Malaysian company, guaranteed to
State of Panang, the performance of PNCC’s obligation to the former.
PNCC failed to perform its obligation with the State of Panang.
Consequently, Asiavest paid the State of Panang the amount of MYR3.9M.
Asiavest filed a collection suit against PNCC to collect from the latter the
amount it paid to the State of Panang basing its cause of action on
Malaysian laws. The PNCC was declared in default. Thus, a judgment by
default was issued by the RTC requiring PNCC to pay Asiavest.
 On appeal to the Court of Appeals, PNCC argued that the RTC lacked
jurisdiction over the subject matter. Further, the RTC should have dismissed
the case based on forum non convenience.

25
 11/01/2022

PNCC vs. Asiavest Merchant Bankers

G.R. No. 172301, August 19, 2015
 Should the RTC dismiss the complaint based on forum non
conveniens?
 Forum non conveniens literally translates to 'the forum is inconvenient. It gives
courts the choice of not assuming jurisdiction when it appears that it is not the
most convenient forum and the parties may seek redress in another one.
 The determination of whether to entertain a case is addressed to the sound
discretion of the court, which must carefully consider the facts of the
particular case. A mere invocation of the doctrine of forum non conveniens or an
easy averment that foreign elements exist cannot operate to automatically
divest a court of its jurisdiction. It is crucial for courts to determine first if
facts were established such that special circumstances exist to warrant its
desistance from assuming jurisdiction.

PNCC vs. Asiavest Merchant Bankers

G.R. No. 172301, August 19, 2015
 Forum non conveniens is grounded on principles of comity and judicial efficiency.
 Consistent with the principle of comity, a tribunal's desistance in exercising
jurisdiction on account of forum non conveniens is a deferential gesture to the
tribunals of another sovereign. It is a measure that prevents the former's having
to interfere in affairs which are better and more competently addressed by the
latter. Further, forum non conveniens entails a recognition not only that
tribunals elsewhere are better suited to rule on and resolve a controversy, but
also, that these tribunals are better positioned to enforce judgments and,
ultimately, to dispense justice. Forum non conveniens prevents the
embarrassment of an awkward situation where a tribunal is rendered
incompetent in the face of the greater capability — both analytical and
practical — of a tribunal in another jurisdiction.

26
 11/01/2022

PNCC vs. Asiavest Merchant Bankers

G.R. No. 172301, August 19, 2015
 The Supreme Court ruled that it is more convenient for PNCC to have the
case tried here in local jurisdiction.
 The trial court assumed jurisdiction and explained in its Order dated August
11, 1995 that "[o]n the contrary[,] to try the case in the Philippines, it is
believed, would be more convenient to defendant corporation as its principal
office is located in the Philippines, its records will be more accessible,
witnesses would be readily available and entail less expenses in terms of legal
services.“
 PNCC failed to plead and show real and present danger that another
jurisdiction commenced litigation and the foreign tribunal chose to exercise
jurisdiction.

Laude vs. Hon. Ginez-Jabalde

G.R. No. 217456, November 24, 2015
 Petitioner, the private complainant in this case filed a Motion to Transfer the
Custody of Pemberton from Camp Aguinaldo to Olongapo City Jail.
However, the private complainant’s motion was filed in violation of the
three (3) day notice rule and that the motion does not bear the conformity
of the prosecutor.
 The motion was denied by Judge Jubalde because of those violations.
Petitioner elevated the matter to Supreme Court. She argued her motion is
an assertion of their right to access to justice as recognized by international
law and the 1987 Constitution. They justify the separate filing of the Motion
as a right granted by Article 2, paragraph (3) of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, independent of "the power of the Public
Prosecutors to prosecute [a] criminal case."

27
 11/01/2022

Laude vs. Hon. Ginez-Jabalde

G.R. No. 217456, November 24, 2015
 Article 2, paragraph (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights provides requires States Parties to ensure that individuals also have
accessible and effective remedies to vindicate those rights.
 Petitioner cannot completely ignore the nature of the obligation
contemplated by the provision in an attempt to justify their failure to
comply with a domestic procedural rule aimed to protect a human right in a
proceeding.
 The obligation contemplated by Article 2, paragraph (3) is for the State
Party to establish a system of accessible and effective remedies through
judicial and administrative mechanisms. The present trial of Pemberton, to
which petitioner, Marilou S. Laude, is included as a private complainant,
indicates that there is a legal system of redress for violated rights.

QC PTCA Federation vs. Department of Education

G.R. No. 188720, February 23, 2016

 Petitioners in this case questions the constitutionality of

Department Order (DO) No. 54, Series of 2009 3 entitled Revised
Guidelines Governing Parents-Teachers Associations (PTAs) at the
School Level. This DO regulates the PTAs in schools and the
cessation of recognition of existing parents-teachers community
associations (PTCAs).
 Petitioner contends that the DO undermines the independence of
PTAs and PTCAs, effectively amend the constitutions and by-laws of
existing PTAs and PTCAs, and violate its constitutional rights to
organize and to due process, as well as other existing laws.

28
 11/01/2022

QC PTCA Federation vs. Department of Education

G.R. No. 188720, February 23, 2016

 Petitioner assails the Department Order as an inordinate

exercise of the Department of Education's rule-making power.
It claims that the Department Order contradicts the provisions
of the Education Act of 1982 and of the Child and Youth
Welfare Code, the statutes that provide for the creation of
PTAs.
 It also alleges that the Department Order was issued without
prior consultation and publication, contrary to the
requirements for regulations issued by administrative agencies.

QC PTCA Federation vs. Department of Education

G.R. No. 188720, February 23, 2016

 The DO is valid.
 Under the law, the Secretary of DepEd has the power to
promulgate administrative issuances necessary for the efficient
administration of the offices under the Secretary and for
proper execution of the laws relative thereto. Pursuant to this
authority, the DO was promulgated.
 The promulgation of the said DO does not impair the right of
the people to form association under Section 8, Article III nor
interfere in the conduct of these associations.

29
 11/01/2022

QC PTCA Federation vs. Department of Education

G.R. No. 188720, February 23, 2016

 The mere fact the PTAs would require recognition from

the school does not impair the right to association.
Likewise, by regulating the conduct of the affairs to ensure
transparency and accountability would not mean
interference.
 The demarcation of the broad right to form associations
vis-à-vis regulations such as registration, requisite approval
by defined authorities, and other such formalities is settled
in jurisprudence.

QC PTCA Federation vs. Department of Education

G.R. No. 188720, February 23, 2016

 Some lessons:
 Two tests determine the validity of delegation of legislative power: (1)
the completeness test and (2) the sufficient standard test. A law is
complete when it sets forth therein the policy to be executed, carried
out or implemented by the delegate. It lays down a sufficient standard
when it provides adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to map
out the boundaries of the delegate's authority and prevent the
delegation from running riot. To be sufficient, the standard must specify
the limits of the delegate's authority, announce the legislative policy
and identify the conditions under which it is to be implemented.

30
 11/01/2022

QC PTCA Federation vs. Department of Education

G.R. No. 188720, February 23, 2016

 Some lessons:
 In addition to the substantive requisites of the
completeness test and the sufficient standard test, the
Administrative Code of 1987 (Administrative Code)
requires the filing of rules adopted by administrative
agencies with the University of the Philippines Law Center.
Generally, rules filed with the University of the Philippines
Law Center become effective 15 days after filing.

QC PTCA Federation vs. Department of Education

G.R. No. 188720, February 23, 2016

 Some lessons:
 'If the nature of the administrative agency is essentially
legislative, the requirements of notice and hearing are not
necessary. The validity of a rule of future action which
affects a group, if vested rights of liberty or property are
not involved, is not determined according to the same rules
which apply in the case of the direct application of a policy
to a specific individual.

31
 11/01/2022

Atty. Joselita Malibago-Santos vs. Francisco

A.M. No. P-16-3459. June 21, 2016

 Sheriffsplay an important role in the effective and

efficient administration of our justice system. They
must, at all times, maintain the high ethical standards
expected of those serving in the judiciary. They
cannot receive any voluntary monetary
considerations from any party in relation to the
performance of their duties as officers of the court.

Ariel Lopez vs. People

G.R. No. 212189, June 29, 2016

 Petitioner was suspected to have taken the carabao

of the complainant. His appearance was requested by
the police authorities for confrontation with his
accuser, the supposed owner of the carabao.
Petitioner appeared and admitted to have taken the
carabao and promised to pay the value of the same.
 Is the admission admissible in evidence?

32
 11/01/2022

Ariel Lopez vs. People

G.R. No. 212189, June 29, 2016
 No.
 The admission was made during custodial investigation without
the benefit of counsel. Custodial investigation commences
when a person is taken into custody and is singled out as a
suspect in the commission of a crime under investigation and
the police officers begin to ask questions on the suspect's
participation therein and which tend to elicit an admission.
 “Custodial investigation" shall include the practice of issuing an
"invitation" to a person who is investigated in connection with
an offense he is suspected to have committed.

Napoles vs. De Lima

G.R. No. 213529, July 13, 2016
 Napoles questioned the finding of probable cause by the prosecution as well as
the issuance of warrant of arrest by Judge Alameda. The Petition for certiorari was
dismissed by the CA. Napoles filed a Petition for review under Rule 45 before the
SC. At the time of the filing of the Petition for review before the SC, Judge
Alameda already rendered his decision convicting Napoles of serious illegal
detention.
 The SC in dismissing the petition ruled that trial court has then acquired exclusive
jurisdiction over the case, and the determination of the accused's guilt or
innocence rests within the sole and sound discretion of the trial court. Besides,
since the RTC already rendered a decision convicting Napoles of the crime
charges, All the more should this Petition be dismissed. Resolving whether there
was probable cause in the filing of information before the trial court and in the
issuance of an arrest warrant would be "of no practical use and value."

33
 11/01/2022

Napoles vs. De Lima

G.R. No. 213529, July 13, 2016
 Reiteration of the difference between determination of
probable cause of the investigating prosecutor and probable
by the judge.
 During preliminary investigation, the prosecutor determines the
existence of probable cause for filing an information in court or
dismissing the criminal complaint. t this stage, the determination of
probable cause is an executive function. Absent grave abuse of
discretion, this determination cannot be interfered with by the courts.
This is consistent with the doctrine of separation of powers.
 On the other hand, if done to issue an arrest warrant, the
determination of probable cause is a judicial function.

Napoles vs. De Lima

G.R. No. 213529, July 13, 2016
 Therefore, the determination of probable
cause for filing an information in court and that
for issuance of an arrest warrant are different.
Once the information is filed in court, the trial
court acquires jurisdiction and "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."

34
 11/01/2022

Napoles vs. De Lima

G.R. No. 213529, July 13, 2016
 Reiteration of the difference between determination of
probable cause of the investigating prosecutor and probable
by the judge.
 During preliminary investigation, the prosecutor determines the
existence of probable cause for filing an information in court or
dismissing the criminal complaint. t this stage, the determination of
probable cause is an executive function. Absent grave abuse of
discretion, this determination cannot be interfered with by the courts.
This is consistent with the doctrine of separation of powers.
 On the other hand, if done to issue an arrest warrant, the
determination of probable cause is a judicial function.

Napoles vs. De Lima

G.R. No. 213529, July 13, 2016
 Therefore, the determination of probable
cause for filing an information in court and that
for issuance of an arrest warrant are different.
Once the information is filed in court, the trial
court acquires jurisdiction and "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."

35
 11/01/2022

Napoles vs. De Lima

G.R. No. 213529, July 13, 2016
 Therefore, the determination of probable
cause for filing an information in court and that
for issuance of an arrest warrant are different.
Once the information is filed in court, the trial
court acquires jurisdiction and "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."

Cagang vs. Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 206438, July 31, 2018
 What are the parameters in determining inordinate
delay?
 First, the right to speedy disposition of cases is different from
the right to speedy trial. While the rationale for both rights is
the same, the right to speedy trial may only be invoked in
criminal prosecutions against courts of law. The right to speedy
disposition of cases, however, may be invoked before any
tribunal, whether judicial or quasi-judicial. What is important is
that the accused may already be prejudiced by the proceeding
for the right to speedy disposition of cases to be invoked.

36
 11/01/2022

Cagang vs. Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 206438, July 31, 2018
 Second, a case is deemed initiated upon the filing of a formal
complaint prior to a conduct of a preliminary investigation. This
Court acknowledges, however, that the Ombudsman should
set reasonable periods for preliminary investigation, with due
regard to the complexities and nuances of each case. Delays
beyond this period will be taken against the prosecution. The
period taken for fact-finding investigations prior to the filing of
the formal complaint shall not be included in the
determination of whether there has been inordinate delay.

Cagang vs. Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 206438, July 31, 2018
 Fourth, determination of the length of delay is never
mechanical. Courts must consider the entire context of the
case, from the amount of evidence to be weighed to the
simplicity or complexity of the issues raised.
 Fifth, the right to speedy disposition of cases or the right to
speedy trial must be timely raised. The respondent or the
accused must file the appropriate motion upon the lapse of the
statutory or procedural periods. Otherwise, they are deemed
to have waived their right to speedy disposition of cases.

37
 11/01/2022

Kim Liong vs. People

G.R. No.200630, June 4, 2018
 “To meet the witnesses face to face" is the right of
confrontation. Subsumed in this right to confront is the right of
an accused to cross-examine the witnesses against him or her,
i.e., to propound questions on matters stated during direct
examination, or connected with it. The cross-examination may
be done "with sufficient fullness and freedom to test [the
witness'] accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest
or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all important facts bearing
upon the issue."

Kim Liong vs. People

G.R. No.200630, June 4, 2018
 However, like any right, the right to cross-examine may be
waived. It “is a personal one which may be waived expressly
or impliedly by conduct amounting to a renunciation of
the right of cross-examination.” When an accused is given
the opportunity to cross-examine a witness but fails to avail of
it, the accused shall be deemed to have waived this right. The
witness' testimony given during direct examination will remain
on record. If this testimony is used against the accused, there
will be no violation of the right of confrontation.

38
 11/01/2022

Canlas vs. Bongolan

G.R. No.199625, June 6, 2018
 In administrative cases, what decisions of the
Ombudsman are not appealable?
 The Ombudsman's decision may not be appealed if it dismisses
the complaint or imposes the penalty of public censure or
reprimand, suspension of not more than one (1) month, or a
fine equivalent to one (1)-month salary. Otherwise, it may be
appealed to the Court of Appeals under the requirements and
conditions set forth in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court (Section
7, Ombudsman, Rule III of Administrative Order No.
07).

Canlas vs. Bongolan

G.R. No.199625, June 6, 2018
 May the private complainant appeal the decision of the
Ombudsman absolving the respondent of the
administrative case?
 The complainant, therefore, is not entitled to any corrective
recourse, whether by motion for reconsideration in the Office
of the Ombudsman, or by appeal to the courts, to effect a
reversal of the exoneration. Only the respondent is granted
the right to appeal but only in case he is found liable and the
penalty imposed is higher than public censure, reprimand, one-
month suspension or a fine equivalent to one (1) month salary.

39
 11/01/2022

Lee vs. Sales

G.R. No.205294, June 4, 2018
 May the filing of the Motion for Reconsideration stay
the judgment of the Ombudsman dismissing the public
officer?
 A pending motion for reconsideration of a decision issued by
the Office of the Ombudsman does not stay its immediate
execution. This is clear under the rules of the Office of the
Ombudsman and jurisprudence (Administrative Order No.
7, as amended by Administrative Order No. 17, Rule III,
Section 7).

Lee vs. Sales

G.R. No.205294, June 4, 2018
 Does RTC have jurisdiction over a petition for prohibition
or injunction directed against the execution of a decision
of the Ombudsman.
 No. Since decisions of the Ombudsman are immediately executory
even pending appeal, it follows that they may not be stayed by the
issuance of an injunctive writ. It bears noting that for an injunction
to issue, the right of the person seeking its issuance must be clear
and unmistakable. However, no such right of petitioner exists to
stay the execution of the penalty of dismissal. There is no vested
interest in an office, or an absolute right to hold office.

40
 11/01/2022

Zapanta vs. COMELEC

G.R. No.233016, March 5, 2019
 In a multi-slot office, all votes cast in favor of the
nuisance candidate whose name is confusingly similar to
a bona fide candidate shall not be automatically credited
in the latter's favor. If the ballot contains one (1) vote for
the nuisance candidate and no vote for the bona fide
candidate, that vote will be counted in the latter's favor.
However, if the nuisance candidate and the bona fide
candidate each gets a vote, only one (1) vote will be
counted in the latter's favor.

Zapanta vs. COMELEC

G.R. No.233016, March 5, 2019
 Who is a nuisance candidate?
 A nuisance candidate is defined as one who, based on the
attendant circumstances, has no bona fide intention to
run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy
has been filed, his sole purpose being the reduction of
the votes of a strong candidate, upon the expectation
that ballots with only the surname of such candidate will
be considered stray and not counted for either of them.

41
 11/01/2022

Tupaz vs. Office of Dep. Ombudsman for Visayas

G.R. No.212491, March 6, 2019
 Nature of the power to determine probable cause by the
prosecutor
 The determination of probable cause is an executive, not a judicial,
function. It is generally not for a court to disturb the conclusion made
by a public prosecutor. This is grounded on the basic principle of
separation of powers. However, "grave abuse of discretion taints a
public prosecutor's resolution if he [or she] arbitrarily disregards the
jurisprudential parameters of probable cause.“ In such cases,
consistent with the principle of checks and balances among the three
(3) branches of government, a writ of certiorari may be issued to
undo the prosecutor's iniquitous determination.

Land Bank vs. Franco

G.R. No. 203242. March 12, 2019
 What is the rule in the determination of just compensation
of agricultural lands expropriated by the government
pursuant to CARL?
 The law provides for criteria to how the just compensation shall be
computed. Pursuant to this law, an IRR was promulgated proving for
the formula to be used in the computation of just compensation.
Initially, it is the DAR which determine the just compensation. If the
determination of DAR is not acceptable to the land owner, the latter
can appeal findings to the RTC which will act as the Special Agrarian
Court. The Court is not entirely shackled by the amount determined
by DAR.The RTC, can determine just compensation on its own.

42
 11/01/2022

Land Bank vs. Franco

G.R. No. 203242. March 12, 2019
 However, while the RTC may determine just compensation
outside of the parameters prescribed by law, the RTC must
have reasonable basis for its determination.
 As this Court held in Alfonso v. Land Bank, any deviation to
the basic formula made in the exercise of judicial discretion
must be "supported by a reasoned explanation grounded on
the evidence on record." A computation by a court made in
"utter and blatant disregard of the factors spelled out by law
and by the implementing rules" amounts to grave abuse of
discretion. It must be struck down.

Manibog vs. People

G.R. No. 211214, March 20, 2019
 Police officer received information that petitioner, whom he knew
as a kagawad and security aide of a Mayor, was carrying a gun
outside the Municipal Tourism Office during an election gun ban.
The police operatives went there and spotted petitioner right in
front of the building with a suspicious-looking bulge protruding
under his shirt, around his waist. The police officers deduced this to
be a firearm based on the object's size and contour. They frisked
the petitioner and confirmed that he was indeed carrying a firearm.
 Consequently, a case for violation of COMELEC gun ban was filed
against the accused.

43
 11/01/2022

Manibog vs. People

G.R. No. 211214, March 20, 2019
 Is the search valid?
 The search is valid. It is a valid “stop and frisk arrest.”
 For a valid stop and frisk search, the arresting officer must have had
personal knowledge of facts, which would engender a reasonable
degree of suspicion of an illicit act.
 Jurisprudence instructed that for a stop and frisk search to be valid,
mere suspicion is not enough; there should be a genuine reason, as
determined by the police officer, to warrant a belief that the person
searched was carrying a weapon. In short, the totality of
circumstances should result in a genuine reason to justify a stop and
frisk search.

Manibog vs. People

G.R. No. 211214, March 20, 2019
 The tip on petitioner, coupled with the police officers'
visual confirmation that petitioner had a gun-shaped object
tucked in his waistband, led to a reasonable suspicion that
he was carrying a gun during an election gun ban.
 The combination of the police asset's tip and the arresting
officers' observation of a gun-shaped object under
petitioner's shirt already suffices as a genuine reason for
the arresting officers to conduct a stop and frisk search on
petitioner.

44
 11/01/2022

Yangson vs. Department of Education

G.R. No. 200170. June 3, 2019
 Petitioner was appointed Principal III in Division of Surigao.
Surigao Norte National High School. The Division school
superintendent issued a memorandum reassigning her to
Toledo S. Pantilo Memorial National High School. Petitioner
protested on the ground that her consent was not secured in
violation of the Magna Carta for Teachers.
 DepEd argued that her appointment is not station-specific.
Thus, she can be assigned anywhere within the Division of
Surigao. It further contended that it is not a case of transfer
but reassignment.

Yangson vs. Department of Education

G.R. No. 200170. June 3, 2019
 How is transfer differentiated from re-assignment?
 Transfer. – A transfer is a movement from one position to
another which is of equivalent rank, level, or salary without
break in service involving the issuance of an appointment.
 Reassignment. – 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.

45
 11/01/2022

Yangson vs. Department of Education

G.R. No. 200170. June 3, 2019
 Appointment should be distinguished from reassignment. An
appointment may be defined as the selection, by the authority vested
with the power, of an individual who is to exercise the functions of a
given office. When completed, usually with its confirmation, the
appointment results in security of tenure for the person chosen
unless he is replaceable at pleasure because of the nature of his office.
 On the other hand, a reassignment is merely a 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.

Yangson vs. Department of Education

G.R. No. 200170. June 3, 2019
 What happened to Petitioner is not transfer bur re-
assignment.
 Here, it has been established that petitioner's appointment is
not station-specific. While she is entitled to her right to
security of tenure, she cannot assert her right to stay at
Surigao National. Her appointment papers are not specific to
the school, which means she may be assigned to any station as
may be necessary for public exigency. Because she holds no
vested right to remain as Principal III of Surigao National, her
security of tenure was not violated.

46
 11/01/2022

Province of Aurora vs. Marco

G.R. No. 202331. April 22, 2015
 Governor Ong) permanently appointed Marco as Cooperative
Development Specialist II five (5) days before the end of her term as
Governor. Marco's appointment, together with 25 other appointments, was
submitted to the Field Office of CSC. Annexed to Marco's appointment
papers was a certification from stating that funds from the Province's 2004
Annual Budget were available to cover the position.
 On June 30, 2004, newly elected Governor Angara-Castillo assumed office.
The next day, she called to an executive meeting all the department heads
of the Province. During the executive meeting, Provincial Budget Officer
Clemente allegedly manifested that the Province had no funds available to
pay for the salaries of Governor Ong's 26 appointees.

Province of Aurora vs. Marco

G.R. No. 202331. April 22, 2015
 Consequently, the budget officer recalled his certification of availability
of funds which new certification was transmitted to the Field Office of
CSC.The CSC disapproved the appointment of Marco and 26 others.
 Marco moved for reconsideration. It was denied. Marco appealed to
CSC.The CSC granted the appeal of Marco.
 The province filed a Petition for Review before the CA and argued
that Marco ‘s appointment is a midnight appointment. This issue
reached the Supreme Court.
 Does the prohibition in Section 15, Article VII applicable to
appointments in local government?

47
 11/01/2022

Province of Aurora vs. Marco

G.R. No. 202331. April 22, 2015

 The constitutional prohibition on midnight appointments

only applies to presidential appointments. It does not
apply to appointments made by local chief executives.
 The prohibition on midnight appointments "applies only
to presidential appointments." This court noted that
"there is no law that prohibits local elective officials from
making appointments during the last days of his or her
tenure."

Province of Aurora vs. Marco

G.R. No. 202331. April 22, 2015
 May CSC prohibits midnight appointment?
 Yes.
 Nonetheless, the Civil Service Commission, as the central personnel
agency of the Government, may "establish rules and regulations to
promote efficiency and professionalism in the civil service." Although
it conceded that no law prohibits local elective officials from making
appointments during the last days of their tenure, this court in
Nazareno vs. City of Dumaguete, 617 Phil. 795 upheld Civil
Service Commission Resolution No. 010988, which prohibited local
elective officials from making appointments immediately before and
after elections.

48
 11/01/2022

Baya vs. Sandiganbayan

G.R. Nos. 204978-83, July 6, 2020
 The Preliminary Investigation lasted for seven (7) years. The
information was filed against petitioner. Petitioner moved to
quash and dismiss the case for inordinate delay. The Supreme
Court dismissed the petition as there is not finding of
inordinate delay.
 Four (4) factors — 1) the length of the delay; 2) the reason for
the delay; 3) the respondent's assertion of the right; and 4)
prejudice to the respondent — are to be considered together,
not in isolation. The interplay of these factors determine
whether the delay was inordinate.

National Federation of Hog Farmers vs. BOI

G.R. Nos. 205835, June 23, 2020
 BOI granted the registration of Charoen Pokphand Foods
Philippines Corporation, a 100% foreign-owned company
from Thailand as new producer of hog parent stocks and
slaughter hogs. The granting of registration was questioned
by Petitioner on the ground that the BOI violated Section
19, Article II which provides that: “The State shall
develop a self-reliant and independent national
economy effectively controlled by Filipinos.”

49
 11/01/2022

National Federation of Hog Farmers vs. BOI

G.R. Nos. 205835, June 23, 2020
 All told, while the Constitution indeed mandates a bias in
favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and enterprises, at
the same time, it recognizes the need for business
exchange with the rest of the world on the bases of
equality and reciprocity and limits protection of Filipino
enterprises only against foreign competition and trade
practices that are unfair.

National Federation of Hog Farmers vs. BOI

G.R. Nos. 205835, June 23, 2020
 In other words, the Constitution did not intend to pursue
an isolationist policy. It did not shut out foreign
investments, goods and services in the development of the
Philippine economy. While the Constitution does not
encourage the unlimited entry of foreign goods, services
and investments into the country, it does not prohibit them
either. In fact, it allows an exchange on the basis of equality
and reciprocity, frowning only on foreign competition that
is unfair.

50