Datu Michael Abas Kida vs Senate of the Philippines

G.R. No. 196271 February 28, 2012

FACTS:

"An Act Providing for the Synchronization of the Elections in the Autonomous Region in Muslim
Mindanao (ARMM) with the National and Local Elections and for Other Purposes" (RA 10153)
was enacted. Its purpose is to reset the next ARMM elections to May 2013 and every 3 years
thereafter to coincide with regular national and local elections of the country . The law also
granted the President the power to "appoint officers-in-charge (OICs) for the Office of the
Regional Governor, the Regional Vice-Governor, and the Members of the Regional Legislative
Assembly, who shall perform the functions pertaining to the said offices until the officials duly
elected in the May 2013 elections shall have qualified and assumed office."

The State, through Sections 15 to 22, Article X of the 1987 Constitution, mandated the creation
of autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras. Congress also enacted RA No.
6734 entitled "An Act Providing for an Organic Act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim
Mindanao which is an organic act that established the ARMM and scheduled its first regular
elections .. There were many laws enacted thereafter resetting the ARMM elections until RA
9333 .

RA 9333 reset for the the third time the ARMM regional elections to the second Monday of
August 3005 and on the same date every 3 years thereafter. Pursuant to this Act the next
ARMM election should  have been held on August 8, 2011. COMELEC had begun preparations
for these elections and had accepted certificates of candidacies for the various regional offices
to be elected. However, the congress enacted RA No. 10153 which reset the ARMM elections
to May 2013, to coincide with the regular national and local elections of the country. Pursuant to
this law the COMELEC stopped its preparations for the ARMM elections. The law gave rise as
well to the filing of the following petitions against its constitutionality

ISSUE:

Whether or not the constitution mandate on the synchronization of elections may be used to
defeat or to impede the autonomy that the Constitution granted to the ARMM.

RULING:
A provision of the constitution should NOT be construed in isolation from the rest.
Rather, the constitution must be interpreted as a whole, and apparently, conflicting provisions
should be reconciled and harmonized in a manner that may give to all of them full force and
effect.

In the case at bar, it was argued that while synchronization may be constitutionally mandated, it
cannot be used to defeat or to impede the autonomy that the Constitution granted to the ARMM.
Phrased in this manner, one would presume that there exists a conflict between two recognized
Constitutional mandates – synchronization and regional autonomy – such that it is necessary to
choose one over the other

The 1987 constitution mandates the synchronization of elections.

Although it is true that the constitution does not expressly state that Congress has to
synchronize national and local elections, the clear intent towards this objective can be gleaned
from the Transitory Provisions (Article XVIII) of the Constitution, which show the extent to which
the Constitutional Commission, by deliberately making adjustments to the terms of the
incumbent officials, sought to attain synchronization of elections. The objective behind setting a
common termination date for all elective officials, done among others through the shortening the
terms of the twelve winning senators with the least number of votes, is to synchronize the
holding of all future elections – whether national or local – to once every three years.

It is likewise evident from the wording of the above-mentioned Sections that the term
of synchronization is used synonymously as the phrase holding simultaneously since this is the
precise intent in terminating their Office Tenure on the same day or occasion. This common
termination date will synchronize future elections to once every three years 

However, the court explains that synchronization is an interest that is as constitutionally

entrenched as regional autonomy. They are interests that this Court should reconcile and give
effect to, in the way that Congress did in RA No. 10153 which provides the measure to transit to
synchronized regional elections with the least disturbance on the interests that must be
respected. Particularly, regional autonomy will be respected instead of being sidelined, as the
law does not in any way alter, change or modify its governing features, except in a very
temporary manner and only as necessitated by the attendant circumstances.

In other words, the autonomy granted to the ARMM cannot be invoked to defeat national
policies and concerns. Since the synchronization of elections is not just a regional
concern but a national one, the ARMM is subject to it; the regional autonomy granted to
the ARMM cannot be used to exempt the region from having to act in accordance with a
national policy mandated by no less than the Constitution.
 Serapio vs Sandiganbayan

G. R. No. 148468 - January 28, 2003

FACTS:

Atty Serapio (petitioner) was a member of the Board of Trustees and the Legal Counsel of
the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation, a non-stock, non-profit foundation established for the
purpose of providing educational opportunities for the poor and underprivileged but deserving
Muslim youth and students, and support to research and advance studies of young Muslim
educators and scientists.

The petitioner as trustee of the Foundation, received on its behalf a donation in the amount
of Two Hundred Million Pesos (P200 Million) from Ilocos Sur Governor Chavit Singson through
the latter’s assistant Mrs. Yolanda Ricaforte.  Petitioner received the donation and turned over
the said amount to the Foundation’s treasurer who later deposited it in the Foundation’s account
with the Equitable PCI Bank.

Chavit Singson puclicly accused President Estrada and  his cohorts including the petitioner
of engaging in several illegal activities, including its operation on the illegal numbers game
known as jueteng. As a result, the government filed a criminal action for plunder against the
former president and Atty. Serapio. A subsequent warrant of arrest When apprised of said
order, petitioner voluntarily surrendered at 9:45 p.m. on the same day to Philippine National
Police Chief Gen. Leandro Mendoza.  Petitioner was then detained at Camp Crame for said
charge.

Petitioner contends that the Ombudsman had totally disregarded exculpatory evidence and
committed grave abuse of discretion in charging him with plunder. He further argues that there
exists no probable cause to support an indictment for plunder as against him.

Atty. Serapio further points out that the joint resolution of the Ombudsman does not even
mention him in relation to the collection and receipt of jueteng money which started in
199828 and that the Ombudsman inexplicably arrived at the conclusion that the Erap Muslim
Youth Foundation was a money laundering front organization put up by Joseph Estrada,
assisted by petitioner, even though the latter presented evidence that said Foundation is a bona
fide and legitimate private foundation. More importantly, he claims, said joint resolution does not
indicate that he knew that the P200 million he received for the Foundation came from jueteng.

Petitioner insists that he cannot be charged with plunder since:

(1) the P200 million he received does not constitute "ill-gotten wealth" as defined in Section
1(d) of R.A. No. 7080;

(2)  there is no evidence linking him to the collection and receipt of jueteng money;

(3)   there was no showing that petitioner participated in a pattern of criminal acts indicative
of an overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten
 wealth, or that his act of receiving the P200 million constitutes an overt criminal act of
plunder.

ISSUE:

THE SANDIGANBAYAN ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION OR WITH

GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION
IN SUMMARILY DENYING PETITIONER SERAPIO'S URGENT OMNIBUS MOTION AND
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (RE: RESOLUTION DATED 31 MAY
2001), NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE OMBUDSMAN HAD TOTALLY DISREGARDED
EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE AND COMMITTED GRAVE AND MANIFEST ERRORS OF LAW
SERIOUSLY PREJUDICIAL TO THE RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF PETITIONER SERAPIO,
AND THERE IS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO SUPPORT AN INDICTMENT FOR PLUNDER AS
AGAINST PETITIONER SERAPIO.

RULING:

NO. The ombudsman found probable cause to charge the petitioner with the crime plunder , the
Sandiganbayan is bouond to assume the jurisdiction over the case and to proceed to try the
same.

The Court has adopted a policy of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations,
and leaves to the investigating prosecutor sufficient latitude of discretion in the exercise of
determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence as will establish 'probable cause' for filing
of information against the supposed offender.

the Ombudsman's findings are essentially factual in nature. It is the petitioners burden to allege
and establish that the Sandiganbayan and the Ombudsman for that matter committed grave
abuse of discretion in issuing their resolution and joint resolution, respectively. Petitioner failed
to discharge his burden.

The court elucidates and stresses that the right to a preliminary investigation is not a
constitutional right, but is merely a right conferred by statute.The absence of a preliminary
investigation does not impair the validity of the Information or otherwise render the same
defective and neither does it affect the jurisdiction of the court over the case or constitute a
ground for quashing the Information. If the lack of a preliminary investigation does not render
the Information invalid nor affect the jurisdiction of the court over the case, with more reason
can it be said that the denial of a motion for reinvestigation cannot invalidate the Information or
oust the court of its jurisdiction over the case. Neither can it be said that petitioner had been
deprived of due process. He was afforded the opportunity to refute the charges against him
during the preliminary investigation.

The court cites the case of Webb vs de leon where the court stated that “finding of probable
cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been
committed and was committed by the suspect. Probable cause need not be based on clear and
convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt
and definitely, not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt”
The purpose of a preliminary investigation is merely to determine whether a crime has been
committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the person accused of the crime
is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial

Absent any showing of arbitrariness on the part of the prosecutor or any other officer authorized
to conduct preliminary investigation, courts as a rule must defer to said officer's finding and
determination of probable cause, since the determination of the existence of probable cause is
the function of the prosecutor.The Court agrees with the Sandiganbayan that petitioner failed to
establish that the preliminary investigation conducted by the Ombudsman was tainted with
irregularity or that its findings stated in the joint resolution dated April 4, 2001 are not supported
by the facts, and that a reinvestigation was necessary.
 Arigo vs Swift

G.R. No. 206510               September 16, 2014

FACTS:

The US Embassy in the Philippines requested diplomatic clearance for the said vessel "to enter
and exit the territorial waters of the Philippines and to arrive at the port of Subic Bay for the
purpose of routine ship replenishment, maintenance, and crew liberty

the USS Guardian, a ship of the US Navy, departed Subic Bay for its next port of call in
Makassar, Indonesia. While transiting the Sulu Sea, the ship ran aground near the Tubbataha
Reefs which is recognized as one of the Philippines' oldest ecosystems, containing excellent
examples of pristine reefs and a high diversity of marine life. The protected marine park is also
an important habitat for internationally threatened and endangered marine species. No one was
injured in the incident, and there have been no reports of leaking fuel or oil.

 The Petitioners claim that the grounding, salvaging and post-salvaging operations of the USS
Guardian cause and continue to cause environmental damage of such magnitude as to affect
the provinces of Palawan, Antique, and other provinces near it. They also contend that such
operation violated their constitutional rights to a healthful ecology .

ISSUE: Whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the US respondents

Ruling:

NO. the US respondents were sued in their official capacity as commanding officers of the US
navy who had control and supervision over the USS Guardian and its crew.

The immunity of the State from suit, known also as the doctrine of sovereign immunity or non-
suability of the State,17 is expressly provided in Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution which states:

Section 3. The State may not be sued without its consent.

Even without such affirmation, we would still be bound by the generally accepted principles of
international law under the doctrine of incorporation. Under this doctrine, as accepted by the
majority of states, such principles are deemed incorporated in the law of every civilized state as
a condition and consequence of its membership in the society of nations. Upon its admission to
such society, the state is automatically obligated to comply with these principles in its relations
with other states.

While the doctrine appears to prohibit only suits against the state without its consent, it is also
applicable to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts allegedly performed by them
in the discharge of their duties. The rule is that if the judgment against such officials will require
the state itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the same,. such as the appropriation of the
amount needed to pay the damages awarded against them, the suit must be regarded as
against the state itself although it has not been formally impleaded.
Under the American Constitution, the doctrine is expressed in the Eleventh Amendment

the US respondents were sued in their official capacity as commanding officers of the US Navy
who had control and supervision over the USS Guardian and its crew. The alleged act or
omission resulting in the unfortunate grounding of the USS Guardian on the TRNP was
committed while they we:re performing official military duties. Considering that the satisfaction of
a judgment against said officials will require remedial actions and appropriation of funds by the
US government, the suit is deemed to be one against the US itself. The principle of State
immunity therefore bars the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court over the persons of
respondents.

Justice Antonio T. Carpio took the position that the conduct of the US in this case, when its
warship entered a restricted area in violation of R.A. No. 10067 and caused damage to the
TRNP reef system, brings the matter within the ambit of Article 31 of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). He explained that while historically, warships
enjoy sovereign immunity from suit as extensions of their flag State, Art. 31 of the UNCLOS
creates an exception to this rule in cases where they fail to comply with the rules and
regulations of the coastal State regarding passage through the latter's internal waters and the
territorial sea.

although the US to date has not ratified the UNCLOS, as a matter of long-standing policy the
US considers itself bound by customary international rules on the "traditional uses of the
oceans" as codified in UNCLOS, as can be gleaned from previous declarations by former
Presidents Reagan and Clinton, and the US judiciary

In the case at bar, the court concurred with Justice Carpio’s view that non membership in the
UNCLOS does not mean that the US will disregard the rights of the Philippines as a Coastal
state over its internal waters and territorial sea . The court expects the US to bear “international
responsibility “ under Art 31 of UNCLOS in connection with the USS Guardian grounding which
adversely affected the tubbataha reefs.