CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I. Bill of Rights Procedural Due Process 1. Existence of Violation Lameyra v.

Pangilinan 322 SCRA 117 FACTS: Petitioner received a letter from the mayor informing him that he is dropped from the roll of employees of the local government unit. Petitioner claims that he was terminated without prior written notice of the charges and without investigation and hearing. HELD: Although it is clear from the Civil Service Memorandum Circular that no prior notice is required to drop from the rolls an employee who has been continuously absent without leave for at least thirty days, petitioner contests the finding that he was absent at all. He claims that he reported for work but was prevented form signing the log book. In view of the circumstances prevailing in this case, the Civil Service Commission should have considered the new evidence annexed by petitioner to his motion for reconsideration. Velayo v. Comelec 327 SCRA 713 FACTS: The Comelec issued a resolution annulling the proclamation of Velayo as mayor. Velayo claimed that he was denied due process because he was not furnished any notice of the pre-proclamation proceedings against him from beginning to end. All that petitioner received from the Comelec was its en banc resolution annulling his proclamation. HELD: Velayo is a real party-in-interest since he was the proclaimed mayor. His non-inclusion as respondent and his lack of notice of the proceedings in the Comelec which resulted to the cancellation of his proclamation constitute clear denial of due process. Uy v. Commission on Audit G.R. No. 130685 (March 21, 2000) FACTS: Governor Paredes dismissed from service more than sixty employees, allegedly to scale down the operations of the office. The Merit Systems Protection Board rendered a decision that the reduction in work force was not done in accordance with civil service rules and regulations, and ordered the reinstatement of the workers. The Commission on Audit (COA) rendered a decision ruling that the back salaries of the workers have become the personal liability of the Governor because the illegal dismissal was done in bad faith. HELD: Governor Paredes was never made a party to nor served a notice of the proceedings before the COA. Fundamental requirement of procedural due process cannot be violated before administrative agencies like COA. Summary Dismissal Board v. Torcita G.R. No. 130442 (April 6, 2000) FACTS: Respondent was charged with 12 administrative complaints which were consolidated into one major complaint, which is, conduct unbecoming of a police officer. The Summary Dismissal Board suspended respondent from service for 20 days, for “simple irregularity in the performance of service”. The Board later found respondent to have committed a breach of internal discipline by taking alcoholic drinks while on duty. HELD: Respondent was entitled to know that he was being charged with being drunk while in the performance of duty. Although he was given the opportunity to be heard on the multiple and broad charges filed against him, the absence of specification of the offense for which he was eventually found guilty is not a proper observance of due process. Villanueva v. Malaya G.R. No. 94617 (April 12, 2000) HELD: The RTC’s granting of the writ of possession ex parte violates petitioner-lessees’ right to due process. A writ of possession may issue against occupants of a property subject of execution who derive their right of possession from the judgment debtor upon motion in the


execution proceedings and without need of a separate ejectment action, provided that the occupants are afforded an opportunity to explain the nature of their possession, on which basis the writ of possession will be denied or granted. Gozun v. Llangco A.M. No. MTJ-97-1136 (August 30, 2000) FACTS: The Sangguniang Bayan passed a resolution declaring the parcel of land occupied by complainant as the new site of the rural health center. Respondent issued a resolution declaring that the Sangguniang Bayan resolution is valid and enforceable and that the mayor could order the police authorities to evict complainant. HELD: Complainant was not made a party to the petition nor notified thereof. Respondent violated the rights of the complainant to due process. 2. Absence of violation Immam v. Comelec 322 SCRA 866 FACTS: Petitioner claims that the questioned Comelec order was issued without any motion for its issuance and without notice and hearing. Thus, he claimed that his right to due process was violated. HELD: The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard. The right to be heard does not only refer to the right to present verbal arguments in court. A party can be heard through the pleadings he submits. In this case, petitioner was heard through the memorandum he submitted. Ocampo v. Office of the Ombudsman 322 SCRA 17 FACTS: A criminal complaint was filed against petitioner for estafa and falsification. The Ombudsman issued several orders to petitioner to file his counter-affidavit and controverting evidence. Petitioner failed. The Ombudsman issued the assailed resolution dismissing petitioner from service. Petitioner claimed that he was denied due process because he was not given any notice of the order declaring him to have waived his right to file his counter-affidavit. HELD: The orders of the Ombudsman requiring petitioner to submit his counter-affidavit contained a warning that if no counter-affidavit is filed within the given period, a waiver would be considered. Also, petitioner was given the opportunity to be heard. A party who chooses not to avail of the opportunity cannot complain of denial of due process National Police Commission v. Bernabe G.R. No. 129914 (May 12, 2000) FACTS: The Court of Appeals set aside the decision of the National Police Commission on the ground that respondent was denied due process in the conduct of the investigation of the charges filed against him. HELD: The essence of due process is simply to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one’s side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. Due process does not always require a trial-type proceeding. In this case, the record shows that respondent was given notice of the complaints and an opportunity to answer. He even submitted an affidavit answering point by point the charges against him. 3. Administrative Due Process Pefianco v. Moral 322 SCRA 439 FACTS: Former DECS Secretary filed an administrative complaint against respondent for dishonesty. She was dismissed. Respondent filed a petition for mandamus to compel petitioner to furnish her a copy of the DECS Investigation Committee Report. It was denied.


HELD: A respondent in an administrative case is not entitled to be informed of the findings and recommendations of any investigating committee created to inquire into charges filed against him. He is entitled only to the administrative decision and a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges and the evidence presented during the hearings of the investigation committee. Respondent had been accorded these rights. 4. Impartiality of Judge Soriano v. Angeles G.R. No. 109920 (August 31, 2000) FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari which seeks to annul the decision of respondent judge acquitting the accused in a direct assault case filed against him by the petitioner on the ground that respondent was biased. HELD: The fact that respondent judge believed the evidence of the defense more than that of the prosecution does not indicate that she was biased. Almendra v. Asis A.M. RTJ-1590 (April 6, 2000) HELD: The mere fact that respondent judge ruled against complainant in the three cases filed before him did not amount to partiality against said complainant or warrant the conclusion that respondent rendered an unjust judgment. People v. Zheng Bai Hui G.R. No. 127580 (August 22, 2000) HELD: The questioning of the witnesses by the judge is not a sufficient sign of bias. (See also People v. Cabiles, G.R. No. 125008, October 23, 2000) Equal Protection De Guzman v. Comelec G.R. No. 129118 (July 19, 2000) FACTS: The Comelec reassigned petitioners to other stations pursuant to Section 44 of the Voter’s Registration Act. The Act prohibits election officers from holding office in a particular city or municipality for more than four years. Petitioners claim that the act violated the equal protection clause because not all election officials were covered by the prohibition. HELD: The law does not violate the equal protection clause. It is intended to ensure the impartiality of election officials by preventing them from developing familiarity with the people of their place of assignment. Large-scale anomalies in the registration of voters cannot be carried out without the complicity of election officers, who are the highest representatives of Comelec in a city or municipality. B. Searches and Seizures 1. Determination of Probable Cause by Judge Dizon v. Veneracion A.M. No. RTJ-97-1376 (July 20, 2000) FACTS: Respondent issued a search warrant for the seizure of 100 cars imported by the operators of Metro Manila Inc. on the ground that the value of the cars had not been paid to the supplier. Prior to the issuance of the warrant, the judge asked the witness for proof. The witness answered that there was evidence from the shipper. HELD: The judge failed to comply with the constitutional requirement that before a search warrant may be issued, there must first be a complainant and his witness, and that the judge should determine probable cause through searching questions and answers. Abdula v. Guiani 326 SCRA 1 HELD: If a judge relies solely on the certification of the prosecutor when the records are not before him, he has not personally determined the existence of probable cause. The constitutional requirement has not been satisfied. The judge does not have to personally


examine the witnesses. However, there should be a report and necessary documents supporting the certification of the prosecutor. All these should be before the judge. (See also Raro v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 108431, July 14, 2000 and Lim v. Felix, G.R. No. 940547) Tolentino v. Malangaon A.M. No. RTJ-99-1444 (August 3, 2000) FACTS: Respondent judge dismissed the case of child abuse filed by petitioner on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish probable cause. Previously, the court ordered petitioner to show cause why the court should order the arrest of the accused. However, petitioner refused to present additional affidavits on the ground that there was no need to prove the factual basis of the information. HELD: The judge must be satisfied with the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. The judge may require the prosecutor to present further evidence to provide a factual basis for the finding of probable cause. 2. Particularity of Description Uy v. Bureau of Internal Revenue G.R. No. 129651 (October 20, 2000) FACTS: Petitioners claim that the search warrant issued lacks particularity. The items described in the warrant are as follows: multiple sets of books of accounts, ledgers, journals, columnar books, cash register books, sales books or records, provisional and official receipts, production record books, inventory lists, stock cards, unregistered delivery receipts, unregistered purchase and sales invoices; sales records, job orders, corporate financial records, bank statements, cancelled checks. HELD: Most of the items listed lacked particularity. The judge could have formed a more specific description of the documents, since the former employee of the petitioners furnished photocopies of the documents sought to be seized. With regard to the unregistered delivery receipts and unregistered purchase and sales invoices, they are specific. No more detailed description could have been given. Items not particularly described may be cut off, without rendering the entire warrant void. 3. Warrantless Searches and Seizure a. Incident of Arrest People v. Elamparo G.R. No. 121572 (March 31, 2000) HELD: Appellant’s subsequent arrest was lawful, coming as it is within the purview of “in flagrante delicto” arrest. The warrantless search and seizure was also lawful since it was a search incidental to a lawful arrest. People v. Sevilla G.R. No. 124077 (September 5, 2000) FACTS: A team of police officers went to the house of the accused to enforce a warrant of arrest. Some members of the Narcotics Command joined the team to look for marijuana. Accused was subsequently charged with illegal possession of marijuana. HELD: The search is illegal. It is not a search incidental to a valid arrest since the Narcotics Command joined the team of police officers for the specific purpose of conducting a search. People v. Figueroa G.R. No. 134056 (July 6, 2000) FACTS: Accused, together with NBI agents, went to the house of his co-accused and pointed to a pail in the kitchen containing prohibited drugs. NBI agents seized the item and arrested coaccused. Is the warrantless seizure valid? HELD: No. The search is not incidental to a valid arrest. The arrest of the co-accused did not precede the search. People v. Che Chun Ting


and (d) plain view justified seizure of the evidence without further search. b. As a result. the police was investigating him as a suspect. 2000) FACTS: Based on a tip from an informer. HELD: The search of Unit 122 and the seizure of drugs found therein are illegal. in full view of NARCOM agents.G. he was already under custodial investigation and had a right to counsel. 131492 (September 29. Deang G. such routine checks cannot be regarded as violative of the right against unreasonable search. In trying to elicit information from the accused. The discovery was not inadvertent. Moving Vehicle People v.R. The confession is also inadmissible. other passengers were searched and all firearms were seized. 128045 (August 24. They uprooted the plants and arrested the accused. Are checkpoints illegal? HELD: As long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search. Unit 122 is not even the house of the accused but that of his girlfriend. They asked the accused who owned the plants and the accused admitted that they belonged to him. 129296 (September 25. the police officers located the plants before they arrested the accused without a warrant. No. No.R. 2000) HELD: A warrantless arrest after the commission of a crime is illegal. A warrantless search should be limited to the premises and surroundings that are under the immediate control of the accused. Escaño 323 SCRA 754 FACTS: During a checkpoint. c. Dela Cruz G. 2000) 5 . He claimed that the warrantless seizure of the money was illegal. 2000) FACTS: Standing outside Unit 122. The seizure of the items he stole is also illegal. a police saw a firearm on the lap of the accused.R. 4. Police officers arrested the surprised man and conducted a search of Unit 122 where they found more bags of shabu. accused handled two transparent bags of drugs to Mabel Po. No. The accused claimed that the warrantless search was illegal while the police officers claimed that the plants were found in plain view. (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent. HELD: The marijuana plants were not in plain view. Subsequently. and the inspection is limited to a visual search. At this point. For the plain view doctrine to apply. the following must be present: (a) there was a valid prior intrusion based on a valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties. People v. 138516 (October 17.R. 130568 (March 21. In this case. Invalid Arrests People v. Prohibited Article in Plain View / Custodial Investigation People v. Ombudsman G. the accused got convicted. No. they were dispatched precisely to look for the marijuana plants. The prosecution offered the plants and the admission of the accused as evidence. Valdez G. HELD: The warrantless seizure of the money was legal because it was made with the consent of the accused. No. police officers went to the place of the accused where they found marijuana plants being cultivated approximately twenty-five meters from the house of the accused. Warrantless Arrests a. (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be where they were. Also. He accompanied the police to his house to surrender his share of the ransom. 2000) FACTS: The accused was arrested for kidnapping for ransom with homicide. Posadas v. R.

appointments to public offices and utilization of public property. Right to Information Gonzales v. The Executive Secretary is obliged to allow the inspection and copying of appointment papers. that is. copies of their appointments. 325 SCRA 476) D. Freedom of expression ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. 5. The concern of the Comelec cannot be justified since there is no showing that exit polls cause chaos in voting centers. with knowledge that it was false or not. for liability to arise. This carries the right to criticize the action and conduct of a public official. HELD: Conducting exit polls and reporting their results are valid exercises of freedom of speech and of the press. the NBI sent agents to the university and tried to arrest two members of a fraternity who were identified by two witnesses as responsible for the killing of a member of another fraternity. These ads contained allegations naming petitioner who was then a PCGG Commissioner of having committed illegal and unauthorized acts. the alleged defamatory statement must relate to official conduct. Thus. Narvasa G. HELD: The NBI agents had no personal knowledge of any fact which might indicate that the two students were probably guilty of the crime. E. 6 . Here. HELD: In libel cases against public officials. HELD: It is the duty of the Executive Secretary to answer the letter of the petitioner. otherwise. Effect of Plea on Illegal Arrest People v. even if the defamatory statement is false. The statements embodied in the advertisement are covered by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. Their attempt to arrest them without a warrant was illegal. 2. 2000) FACTS: Petitioner wrote a letter to the Executive Secretary requesting for information with respect to the names of executive officials holding multiple positions. Petitioner filed a complaint for the crime of libel. Comelec 323 SCRA 811 FACTS: Comelec came up with a resolution prohibiting the conduct of exit polls during elections for the reason that exit polls have the tendency to cause confusion. the objection is deemed waived. Gomez 325 SCRA 61 HELD: Any objection to the warrant of arrest or the procedure in the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea.R. Buluran. he may be estopped from assailing the illegality of his arrest. if he fails to move for the quashing of the information against him before his arraignment. Petitioner filed this petition to compel the Executive Secretary to answer his letter. petitioner failed to prove actual malice on the part of the private respondents. 140835 (August 14. and a list of recipients of luxury vehicles previously seized by the Bureau of Customs and turned over to the Office of the President. (See also People v. Libel Jalandoni v. The letter deals with matters of public concern. A limitation on them may be justified only by a danger of such substantive character that the state has a right to prevent. unless the public official concerned proves that the statement was made with actual malice. No. Drilon 327 SCRA 107 FACTS: Private respondents published a full-page advertisement in five major daily newspapers. Freedom of Speech and of the Press 1.FACTS: Upon the request of the University Chancellor.

2000) c. The prosecution presented the sworn statements as evidence. 2000) HELD: Compensation for land expropriation for agrarian reform is valid. 10 Art. No. Accused claimed that their sworn statements were not admissible in evidence since they were not assisted by counsel. III of the Constitution prohibits is the passage of a law which enlarges. The trial court rejected the photographs taken of the accused immediately after the incident on the ground that the same were taken when the accused was already under the mercy of the police. Administrative Investigation Sebastian v. even without the assistance of counsel.R. No. Eminent Domain Santos v. Government agents seized and detained the two trucks of Navarro after discovering that there were still unpaid taxes. HELD: The Memorandum of Agreement does not impose any additional taxes which would unduly impair the contract of sale between petitioner and private respondent.R. the Land Transportation Office and the Bureau of Customers (BOC) entered in a Memorandum of Agreement which provided that for purposes of registering vehicles. a Certificate of Payment should first be obtained from the BIR. Rights During Investigation 1. Navarro G. Subsequently. 2000) FACTS: Harrison Motors sold two trucks to Navarro. Instead. is not a violation of his constitutional rights against self-incrimination. G. 130594. Prohibition Against Impairment of Contracts Harrison Motors Corporation v. Gallarde 325 SCRA 835 FACTS: Accused was charged with the crime of rape with homicide. 2000) HELD: The accused-appellant’s defense that the identification made by the private complainant in the police line-up is inadmissible because the appellant stood at the line-up without the assistance of counsel is inadmissible. they submitted sworn statements. Police Line-Up People v. 132269 (April 27. 7 .R. No. HELD: The right to counsel is not imperative in administrative investigation because such inquiries are conducted merely to determine whether there are facts that merit disciplinary measures against erring public officers.F. even if made not completely in cash. What Sec. Sirad. Land Bank of the Philippines G. Photograph People v. During interrogation. HELD: The taking of pictures of an accused. (See also People v. The stage of an investigation wherein a person is asked to stand in a police line-up is outside the mantle of protection of the right to counsel. July 5. Garchitorena G. 2000) FACTS: Some employees of the post office were investigated by the chief postal service officer in connection with missing postage stamps. b. No.R.R. H. 137431 (September 7. the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). Inapplicability a. 114028 (October 18. G. No. Partiare G. 129970 (April 5. these administrative orders were passed to enforce payment of existing BIR taxes and customs duties at the time of importation. abridges or in any manner changes the intention of the contracting parties. The trial court convicted him of murder only. being purely a mechanical act.

R. 2000) HELD: Receipt by the accused of prohibited drugs is inadmissible in evidence. No. When certain persons are already singled out and pinpointed as authors of the crime. 122733 (October 2.G. 135406 (July 11. 117802 (April 27. Samolde G. 1992. 129296 (September 25. HELD: The confession is inadmissible. Legaspi G. HELD: The confession is inadmissible. The accused was given only a perfunctory recitation of his rights. 2000) HELD: Confession given by the accused without the assistance of counsel. he was already under custodial investigation. No. The moment the accused was arrested and detained. he was informed of his right to remain silent. 2000) FACTS: The accused was arrested for bank robbery. Valdez G. Applicability Gutang v. People v. The lawyer was called only on the 4th day of detention when the accused was about to put down his confession in writing. No. 3. 128551 (July 31. the police investigator took down his extrajudicial confession and called a lawyer who conferred with the accused for ten minutes and executed his confession. is inadmissible in evidence. and that he had the right to be assisted by counsel of his own choice.R. They were identified as perpetrators of the crime by someone from a group of eleven residents who were invited for questioning by the police.R. 8 . They also signed a waiver in the presence of a counsel which contained that they did not want the assistance of counsel. while on the way to the police station. the prosecution offered his confession in evidence. 2000) FACTS: Legaspi and Franco were charged and convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.R. No. People v. This is inadequate to transmit meaningful information to the suspect. Bariquit G. People v. Custodial Investigation People v. Sufficiency of Warning People v. they are entitled to the rights of persons under custodial investigation. During trial. 2000) FACTS: Accused were found guilty of two counts of murder. that any statement he might give could be used as evidence against him. 122510 (March 17. People G. No. HELD: No rights were transgressed inasmuch as Legaspi and Franco were not yet singled out as perpetrators of the crime on November 29. The lawyer’s explanation on the effects of the waiver is unsatisfactory. It is intrinsically flawed. Inviting certain individuals for questioning and asking them a single question as to their whereabouts on the day of the crime do not amount to custodial investigation. 2000) FACTS: The accused was arrested for murder.R. the extra-judicial confession is inadmissible evidence. HELD: Rights to remain silent and to counsel were violated. No. Also. They executed an extra-judicial confession wherein they narrated their participation in the commission of the crime. The accused now claims that their rights during custodial investigation were violated. After four days. 4.R. It was not prepared at the time the waiver was being prepared since another typewriter was used in preparing the extra-judicial confession. Manriquez G. It was merely attached as page 2 of the waiver. Before he was interrogated.

2000) HELD: While the initial choice in cases where a person under custodial investigation cannot afford the services of a lawyer is naturally lodged in the police investigators. 2 ) the confession must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel. Among the evidence the trial court relied upon were the confession of the accused. 323 SCRA 318) 6. G. Obrero G. As part of the police force. Waiver People v. 1000801 (August 25. No. The accused were informed of their constitutional rights in the presence of their counsel. the investigator requested two lawyers to act as counsel for the accused. G. b. Lumandong 327 SCRA 650 HELD: The four fundamental requirements on the admissibility of the extrajudicial confession are: 1) the confession must be voluntary. it is inadmissible. 2000) FACTS: Appellant was charged with robbery with homicide. Hermoso G. Llanes. No. At the time he assisted accused-appellant. 130590 (October 18. G. No. No. he was the station commander of the WPD and a PC captain. and 4) the confession must be in writing. People v. Despite the manifestation of the accused that they intended to give their statements. Paglinawan. They contained an advice that the accused might engage the service of a lawyer of their own choice and that if they could not afford the service of a lawyer. Continente G. Mameng.R. The text of the confession is darker suggesting that a different typewriter was used from that used to type the name of the accused. 140268. September 18. The lawyers conferred with the accused before their investigation. since they were not informed of their constitutional right. 5. The accused argued that their confession were inadmissible in evidence. His extra-judicial confession was presented as evidence. Gallardo. HELD: Extra-judicial confession is inadmissible in evidence because counsel for accused was not independent. Inadmissible Evidence People v. No. 123147. Daeng. they would be provided with one for free. 109773 (March 30. Admissible Evidence People v. 2000) People v. As such. 2000. 122142 (May 17.People v. The confession are admissible in evidence.R. A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused where he never raised any objection against the former’s appointment during the course of the investigation. 2000. 3) the confession must be express.R. No. Admissibility of Evidence a. August 24. he could not be expected to have effectively assisted the accused during the investigation. (See also People v. Base G. No. HELD: The written warning contained an explanation that the investigation dealt with the participation of the accused who chose not to give any statement to the investigator and a warning that any statement obtained from the accused might be used against them in court. October 13. 2000) FACTS: The trial court convicted the accused of murder. and People v. Independence of Counsel People v. 128045.R. (See also People v. the accused really has the final choice as he may reject the counsel chosen for him and ask for another one. (See also People v. 324 SCRA 97) c.R. Naag 322 SCRA 710 HELD: Circumstances show that the extrajudicial confession was signed without the assistance of counsel.R.R. 2000) 9 .

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied because it was filed out of time. Accused cannot be held liable for the injuries. Presence of Violation People v. Otherwise. HELD: Petitioner was represented by counsel of his choice in the trial court.R. CA 324 SCRA 321 FACTS: Petitioner filed a petition for bail. Aquino G.HELD: When the confession of the accused was given without the assistance of counsel and the accused did not object. it was shown that the victims also suffered injuries. Accused claimed that he was denied of his constitutional right to counsel. accused was convicted based on the strength of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the defense. Different Offense People v. Nadera 324 SCRA 490 FACTS: The accused was charged for raping his two daughters. the accused might be precluded from filing a motion to quash. 135098 (April 12. HELD: Bails should be granted before arraignment. During trial. and also by a counsel de parte before the CA. No. and expressed his conformity for the admission of the evidence of the prosecution. Right to Counsel 1. The trial court granted it but imposed a condition that the approval of the bail bond would only be made after arraignment to make sure that the accused could not delay his trial by absenting himself. He pleaded guilty. The lawyer did not present any evidence. he waives his right to object.R. He had the opportunity to present his own version of the events but he just kept quiet. 2000) FACTS: Petitioner was found guilty of the Bouncing Check Law. HELD: The case should be remanded because of the neglect of the lawyer of the accused in representing his cause. The lawyer of the accused did not cross-examine the first daughter because he was convinced that she was telling the truth. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The cross examination of the second daughter centered on what she did when she saw her sister being raped. Petitioner claimed that he had a difficulty in finding a new lawyer and that when the CA denied his motion for reconsideration. Absence of Violation People v. He appealed to the Court of Appeals. he was denied of his right to counsel. I. People G. 129288 (March 30. 2000) FACTS: Accused were charged with robbery with homicide. Right to Bail Lardes v. Paglinawan 324 SCRA 97 FACTS: The accused was charged with murder. Villanueva v. Right to be Informed 1. H. HELD: A person cannot be convicted of a crime for which he has not been charged. No. I. 2. Besides. HELD: Accused should have informed the trial court if he had difficulties with his counsel. There was no violation of his right to counsel when his new lawyer committed a procedural blunder. 10 .

Number of Offense People v. No. No. 4. 2000) FACTS: A libel case was filed against the petitioner-accused. HELD: The prosecution had no fault in the delay since the membership of the general court martial underwent changes four times and none of the original members who heard the prosecution witnesses were reappointed in the succeeding court martial. He filed a motion to quash on the ground of prescription which was denied. The accused argued that his right to a speedy trial has been violated since the case has been going on for years. Date of Commission of Crime Sumbang v. No. 11 . the two witnesses did not appear. His silence should be interpreted as a waiver of such right. Right to Compulsory Process People v. G. The subpoena for the first witness remained unserved while the subpoena for the second was received four days before date of hearing. Besides. even though the victim was raped more than once. Petitioner-accused later on claimed that his right to a speedy trial was violated.R. At the next hearing. the petitioner failed to assert his right to a speedy trial. Crispin 327 SCRA 167 HELD: Affidavit of a witness who was not presented as such is not admissible in evidence. 2000) 5. Yambot G. Villar 322 SCRA 390 HELD: If no qualifiying circumstances were alleged in the information. M. 140188 (August 3. N. HELD: The right to a speedy trial is violated only when there is an unreasonable delay without the fault of the accused. 13. The composition of the court martial was changed four times. 134536. 120350 (Oct. the accused can only be convicted of one count of rape. while the subpoena for the other witness was received only three days before the hearing. 2000) FACTS: The accused were charged with kidnapping for ransom.R. 129164 (March 15. No. was charged with double murder before a general court martial.R. 2000) HELD: If a person is charged only with one count of rape. It was only after the general court martial resumed hearing of the case in 1999 that petitioner invoked his right to a speedy trial.2. Arambulo v. When it was their turn to present evidence. accused cannot be sentenced to death. Petitioner-accused is not without fault in the delay of the prosecution against her. His motion for reconsideration was also denied. who is a member of the Philippine Constabulary. Laqui G. Absence of Qualifying Circumstance People v. He filed motion for reconsideration which was also denied. Right to Confrontation People v. The trial court denied the request of the counsel of the accused for postponement and considered the case submitted for decision even though it issued a warrant for the arrest of the second witness. Pambid. (See also People v.R. Alnero. G. General Court Martial PRO-Region 6 G. No. (See also People v. April 5. Petitioner-accused filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals which was dismissed. 138596 (October 12. Bernaldez. the subpoena for the first witness was not served because she was unknown at her given address. 322 SCRA 762).R. 2000) FACTS: Petitioner.

The Ombudsman filed an information against petitioners on November 5. No. The SC nullified the authority of the Office of the Special Prosecutor which necessitated the issuance of AO #1 by the Ombudsman authorizing the Special Prosecutor to continue with the preliminary investigation. Petitioners filed motion for reinvestigation. The prosecutor issued another subpoena to give petitioner chance to file counteraffidavits which he filed only on March 1992.HELD: The delay is not entirely attributable to the accused. HELD: There was no violation of right to speedy trial.R. Raro v. HELD: The concept of speedy disposition of cases is a relative and flexible concept. The delay was not capricious nor oppressive but was brought about by frequent amendments of procedural laws in the initial stages of the case. Fernandez 327 SCRA 145 FACTS: Petitioners. Petitioners argued that the delay in the termination of the preliminary investigation violated their right to a speedy disposition of their cases. Domingo v. The trial court should have granted postponement. 2000) FACTS: The complaint against petitioner for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act was referred by the Deputy Ombudsman to the NBI for investigation. the petitioners argue that the fouryear delay in the completion of the preliminary investigation violated right to speedy disposition of cases. 30. a case was filed against petitioner with the Sandiganbayan. More than one year and four months after the cases were submitted for resolution. It cannot be said that petitioners found themselves in a situation oppressive to their rights simply by reason of delay. were charged with estafa thru falsification of a public document in the office of the Ombudsman. On July 30. The resolution recommending the filing of the case against petitioner has to be reviewed. The NBI recommended the prosecution of the petitioners. Petitioners argued that the case should be dismissed for unjustified delay in the filing of the information. O. The protection under the speedy disposition of cases should not operate as to deprive the government of the inherent prerogative to prosecute criminal cases or in seeing to it that all who approach the bar of justice be afforded a fair opportunity to present their side. Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases Dansal v. An additional charge for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act was filed against the petitioners. Castillo v. a complaint was filed with the Tanodbayan against petitioner for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. It is consistent with reasonable delay. the case was assigned to a new prosecutor. 1987. After the reorganization by the Ombudsman of the Office of the Special Prosecutor. 1992. 1987.R. Sandiganbayan G. The assigned prosecutor retired in 1989. 1990 without first resolving the motion for reinvestigation. HELD: It took the NBI 2 years to complete its report. 109271 (March 14. 108431 (July 14. who were officers of the National Food Authority. On Oct. The length of time it took before the conclusion 12 . The subpoena sent to petitioner was return unserved because he was no longer connected with his previous office. 1986. However. Sandiganbayan 322 SCRA 655 FACTS: On May 26. 2000) FACTS: On August 25. HELD: The delay was not undue since it was brought about by peculiar unforeseen circumstances. Petitioner argued that the inordinate delay in the preliminary investigation violated right to speedy disposition of his case. the Tanodbayan recommended filing a case for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. the Office of the Ombudsman issued a resolution recommending the filing of a case for estafa thru falsification and a case for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act against the petitioners. No. Sandiganbayan G. a complaint was filed against petitioners with the Tanodbayan.

HELD: Dual citizenship as a disqualification refers to citizens with dual allegiance. No. HELD: On the ground of double jeopardy. Different Offenses People v.R. Velasco G. Double Jeopardy 1. March 28. 127444 (September 13. She ran for governor. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT A. The fact that she has dual citizenship does not automatically disqualify her from running for public office. Party-List 13 . The prosecution filed a petition for certiorari on the ground that the trial court deliberately and wrongfully interpreted certain facts and evidence. HELD: The respondent is a Filipino citizen since her father is a Filipino. 137000 (August 9.R. Valles v. Prohibition Against Cruel Punishment People v. 2000) FACTS: Trial court acquitted respondent from a case of murder. 2000) FACTS: Respondent was born in Australia to a Filipino father and an Australian mother. two cases of frustrated murder and a case for illegal possession of firearms outside of his residence. III. she has dual citizenship. 2000) HELD: Death penalty is not cruel. Comelec G. filed a case for disqualification on the ground that she is not a Filipino citizen since she was issued an alien certificate of registration.R. Australia follows jus soli. G. Ong 322 SCRA 38 HELD: An illegal recruiter can be charged with estafa and illegal recruitment (See also People v. No. She ran for governor. No. No. Opponent filed petition to disqualify her on the ground of dual citizenship. 117145. At most.R. Such declaration operates as an effective renunciation of foreign citizenship. there was an application for an immigrant certificate of residence and she was a holder of an Australian passport. Q. Alicante G. Holding of an Australian passport and an alien certificate of registration does not constitute an effective renunciation of citizenship and does not militate against her claim of Filipino citizenship.R. 1934 to a Filipino father and an Australian mother. the candidate declares himself to be a Filipino citizen and that he will support the Philippine Constitution. 137000 (August 9. Meris. Filing a certificate of candidacy suffices to renounce foreign citizenship because in the certificate. 2. No. Prosecution cannot accomplish through a writ of certiorari what it could not do so by appeal. 2000) II. Petitioner. P. an acquittal is final and unappealable. 2000) FACTS: Respondent was born in Australia on May 16. Termination People v.of the preliminary investigation may only be attributed to the adherence of the Ombudsman and NBI to the rudiments of fair play. Citizenship Valles v. her opponent. 127026 (May 31. Comelec G.

HELD: Election to high government office does free accused from the common restraints of general law. he argued that he should be allowed to attend the legislative sessions and committee hearings.R. Upon petition by other party-list organization. HELD: Section 5(2). the accused would be virtually made a free man. No. 2000) FACTS: Section 44 of the Voter’s Registration Act provided that no election officer shall hold office in a particular municipality or city for more than 4 years. 2000) FACTS: A petition to disqualify respondent as a candidate for Congressman was filed with the Comelec on the ground that he was campaigning although he had not filed a certificate for candidacy. Congress deemed it necessary that parties participating in the system to obtain at least 2% of the total votes cast to be entitled to a party-list seat. The Congress is vested with power to define and prescribe the mechanics of the party-list system of representation. which is “An Act Providing for a 14 . When he was elected into office. Election to the position of Congressman is not a reasonable classification in criminal law enforcement. Comelec G. C.R. the voters were aware of his limitations on his freedom of action. It merely provides a ceiling for party list seats in the House of Representatives. The filing of a certificate of candidacy is a statutory qualification. Confinement of a congressman charged with a crime punishable by more than 6 years has constitutional foundations. The petitioner argued that the substitution was fatally defective since the replaced candidate was an independent and the respondent ran as candidate for a political party. who were election officers to other stations. Petitioners argued that the provision was not expressed in the title of the law. Attendance of Session People v. Article VI of the Constitution. Comelec G. Article VI of the Constitution is not mandatory. Title of the Law De Guzman v. a Congressman was confined at the national penitentiary. the jurisdiction of Comelec over his qualification ends and jurisdiction of Electoral Tribunal begins. HELD: Once a winning candidate has assumed office as a member of the House of Rep. Comelec dismissed petition on the ground that the matter is now within the exclusive jurisdiction of the House of Representative Electoral Tribunal. it proclaimed another 38 additional party representatives althout they received less than 2% of the votes on the ground that under the Constitution it is mandatory that at least 20% of the members of House of Rep. No. This is to ensure that only parties with sufficient number of constituents are actually represented in Congress. Respondent was proclaimed winner and assumed office. respondent filed his certificate of candidacy as substitute for another candidate who withdrew. because his confinement was depriving his constituents of their voice in Congress. a member of the House of Rep is privileged from arrest only if offense is punishable by not more than 6 years imprisonment. 129118 (July 19.No. must come from the party list system.R. Under Section II. Jalosjos 324 SCRA 689 FACTS: While his appeal from a conviction of rape is pending. the Comelec reassigned petitioners. If allowed to attend the congressional sessions. Since he was reelected to his position. the accused. 136781 (October 6. Electoral Tribunal Guerrero v. Three days before the election. B. In the exercise of their Constitutional prerogative.Veteran Federation Party v. Congress can continue to function even without all its members being present. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is not limited to constitutional qualifications only. 137004 (July 26. Comelec G. In accordance with it. 2000) FACTS: The Comelec proclaimed 14 party list representatives from 13 parties which obtained at least 2% of the total number of votes cast as member of the House of Rep. D.

R. HELD: The Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority is under the control of the Office of the President. CA G. 119903 (August 15. Executive Department A. C. No. Perez G. Prescribing the Procedures Thereof and Authorizing the Appropriation of Fund Thereof”. HELD: The contention is untenable. 133594. Zamora G.General Registration of Voters. 2000) IV. G. State of Rebellion Lacson v. Petitioner filed action for specific performance. Immunity from Suit Gloria v. He asserted that violent crimes like bank and store robberies. Respondent filed a petition for prohibition against the Secretary on the ground that his indefinite reassignment violated his security of tenure. 131367 (August 31.R. The Office of the President set aside the award and ordered a new bidding. HELD: The contention is untenable. IBP questioned validity of the order on the ground that there is no factual basis for President to exercise his power to call out the Armed Forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence. No. The petition is not directed against the President. It awarded the contract to petitioner. Appellate Jurisdiction of Supreme Court Villanert v. D. kidnappings and carnappings continue to occur.R. 147780 (May 10. 2000) FACTS: Upon recommendation by the Secretary of Education. 2000) FACTS: In view of the alarming increase in violent crimes in Metropolitan Manila. (See also Tirol v. Desierto 326 SCRA 355 HELD: The law making the decision of the Ombudsman appealable to the SC is invalid because the concurrence of the SC was not obtained. holdups. August 3. No. HELD: The IBP failed to support its assertion that the President acted without factual basis. Marines to conduct joint visibility patrols for crime prevention and suppression. No. Therefore the President may overturn any of awards granted by it for justifiable reasons. The President has determined the necessity and factual basis for calling the armed forces. The Secretary argued that the filing of the case violated the immunity of the President from suit. Presidential decisions may be questioned before the courts. Power to Call Out Armed Forces IBP v. B.R. No. The court can take judicial notice of the recent bombing perpetrated by lawless elements in public places. 941284 (August 15. 2001) 15 . V. Power of Control Hutchison Ports Philippines.R. respondent was reassigned as superintendent in another school. Culture and Sports. Ltd. Section 44 is relevant to the subject matter of registration as it seeks to ensure the integrity of the registration process by providing a guideline for the Comelec to follow in the reassignment of election officers. Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority G. 2000) FACTS: The Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority conducted a bidding for the development and operation of a modern marine container terminal. Adopting a System of Continuing Registration. the President ordered the PNP and the Phil. E. Commission on Audit.

Even if instant petition may be considered as an action for declaratory relief. faced by an angry mob assaulting and attempting to break into Malacañang. Warrantless arrests of several alleged leaders and promoters of the “rebellion” were thereafter effected. the instant petitions have been rendered moot and academic. Petitioner Defensor-Santiago has not shown that she is in imminent danger of being arrested without a warrant. Petitioner Lumbao. Moreover. 3. Hence. argues that the declaration of a “state of rebellion” is violative of the doctrine of separation of powers. 1. President Macapagal-Arroyo. Petitioners cannot ask the Court to direct the courts before whom the informations against the petitioners are filed to desist from arraigning and proceeding with the trial of the case. LDP has not demonstrated any injury to itself which would justify resort to the Court. 2. As to petitioners’ claim that the proclamation of a “state of rebellion” is being used by the authorities to justify warrantless arrests. 2001 siege) E. This means that preliminary investigations will be conducted. She likewise issued General Order No. March 2. leader of the People’s Movement against Poverty (PMAP). As for petitioner Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP). it is not a real party-in-interest. 2001. since an individual subjected to warrantless arrest is not without adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law. PETITIONS DISMISSED (However. 38 and obtain regular warrants of arrests from the courts. Such relief is clearly premature considering that as of this date. the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction in the first instance over such a petition. as having no basis both in fact and in law. four related petitions were filed before the Court assailing the declaration of a state of rebellion by the President and the warrantless arrests allegedly effected by virtue thereof. 2001 16 . 2001. may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence. 7. 5. 4. petitioners cannot be arrested without the required judicial warrant for all acts committed in relation to or in connection with the May 1. Hold departure orders issued against petitioners cannot be declared null and void since petitioners are not directly assailing the validity of the subject hold departure orders in their petition. Legitimacy of the Arroyo Presidency Estrada v. Petitioner is a juridical person not subject to arrest. The Court disagreed since the President as the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines.” which allegedly gave a semblance of legality to the arrests. issued Proclamation No. and the declaration of a “state of rebellion. petitioners’ contention that they are under imminent danger of being arrested without warrant do not justify their resort to the extraordinary remedies of mandamus and prohibition. members and supporters are being threatened with warrantless arrest and detention for the crime of rebellion. Nor is it alleged that its leaders. her petition of mandamus cannot be issued since such right to relief must be clear at the time of the award. 1 directing the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police to suppress the rebellion in the National Capital Region. the President ordered the lifting of the declaration of a “state of rebellion” in Metro Manila. 38 declaring that there was a state of rebellion in the National Capital Region. 146710-15. On May 6. it cannot claim to be threatened by a warrantless arrest.FACTS: On May 1. Aggrieved by the warrantless arrests. 6. there are actually general instructions to law enforcement officers and military agencies to implement Proclamation No. R. Desierto G. Accordingly. no complaints or charges have been filed against any of the petitioners for any crime. Nos. 8. Thus. being an encroachment on the domain of the judiciary to interpret what took place on May 1.

and (5) he called on his supporters to join him in the promotion of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and 17 .” “ Ayoko na” are words of resignation. he will leave by Monday. for the sake of peace and in order to begin the healing process of our nation. bureaucracy.) "I just want to clear my name. EDSA I involves the exercise of the people power of revolution which overthrew the whole government. Pagod na ako sa red tape. the seat of the presidency. he says. EDSA II involves legal questions. d. the doctrine has been laid down that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is . notably section 1 of Article II. the bureaucracy. Ayoko na masyado nang masakit. In the press release containing his final statement. SECOND: Using the totality test. (1) he acknowledged the oath-taking of the respondent as President of the Republic albeit with the reservation about its legality. 146738 FACTS: Petitioner sought to enjoin the respondent Ombudsman from conducting any further proceedings in any criminal complaint that may be filed in his office. Madison. the resignation of the petitioner was treated as a given fact.” The SC held that this is high grade evidence that the petitioner has resigned. He did not say he was leaving the Palace due to any kind of inability and he was going to re-assume the presidency as soon as the disability disappears. he was referring to the past opportunity given him to serve the people as President.” HELD: FIRST: The cases at bar pose legal and not political questions. but EDSA II is intra constitutional and the resignation of the sitting President that it caused and the succession of the Vice President as President are subject to judicial review. EDSA I presented political question. The only unsettled points at that time were the measures to be undertaken by the parties during and after transition period. . The proposal for a snap election for president in May where he would not be a candidate is an indicium that petitioner had intended to give up the presidency even at that time. only in an acting capacity pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution. I don’t want any more of this – it’s too painful. The intent to resign is clear when he said “x x x Ayoko na masyado nang masakit. the SC held that petitioner resigned as President. the intrigue. praying for judgment “confirming petitioner to be the lawful and incumbent President of the Republic of the Philippines temporarily unable to discharge the duties of his office. b.” The Court also distinguished between EDSA People Power I and EDSA People Power II. (4) he assured that he will not shirk from any future challenge that may come ahead in the same service of our country. and declaring respondent to have taken her oath as and to be holding the Office of the President. During the negotiations. (I am very tired.R. and the allocation of governmental powers under section II of Article VII. c. and section 8 of Article VII. then I will go. "If the envelope is opened. "The President says. His resignation was also confirmed by his leaving Malacañang. . Arroyo G. EDSA I is extra constitutional and the legitimacy of the new government that resulted from it cannot be the subject of judicial review. on Monday. I’m tired of the red tape. No. They also involve the correct calibration of the right of petitioner against prejudicial publicity. (2) he emphasized he was leaving the Palace. As early as the 1803 case of Marbury v. Erap also filed a Quo Warranto case. EDSA II is an exercise of people power of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances which only affected the office of the President. as well as to open the second envelop to clear his name. The Angara diary shows that the President wanted only five-day period promised by Reyes. a. intriga. The principal issues for resolution require the proper interpretation of certain provisions in the 1987 Constitution. (3) he expressed his gratitude to the people for the opportunity to serve them.Estrada V. Petitioner’s reference is to a future challenge after occupying the office of’ the president which he has given up. “Pagod na pagod na ako. The issues likewise call for a ruling on the scope of presidential immunity from suit. Without doubt. until after the term of petitioner as President is over and only if legally warranted.

The plea. JR. Pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to fair trial. The mere fact that the trial of appellant was given a day-to-day. THIRD: The petitioner is permanently unable to act as President. petitioner cannot cite any decision of the SC licensing the President to commit criminal acts and wrapping him with post-tenure immunity from liability. would put a perpetual bar against his prosecution. the national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity could not be attained if he did not give up the presidency. In the case at bar. if granted. The SC also ruled in In re: Saturnino Bermudez that “incumbent Presidents are immune from suit or from being brought to court during the period of their incumbency and tenure” but not beyond. The impeachment trial of petitioner Estrada was aborted by the walkout of the prosecutors and by the events that led to his loss of the presidency. FIFTH: Petitioner was not denied the right to impartial trial. Congress has clearly rejected petitioner’s claim of inability. still.solidarity.” Both houses of Congress have recognized respondent Arroyo as the President. l75 which states: “RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SUPPORT OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO THE ASSUMPTION INTO OFFICE BY VICE PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO AS PRESIDENT OFTHE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. FOURTH: The petitioner does not enjoy immunity from suit. his final act of farewell. On February 7. The totality of circumstances of the case does not prove that the trial judge acquired a fixed opinion as a result of prejudicial publicity which is incapable if change even by evidence 18 . gavel-to-gavel coverage does not by itself prove that the publicity so permeated the mind of the trial judge and impaired his impartiality. 82 which states: “RESOLUTION CONFIRMING PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO’S NOMINATION OF SEN. His presidency is now in the past tense. Considering the peculiar circumstance that the impeachment process against the petitioner has been aborted and thereafter he lost the presidency. Certainly. 83 “Recognizing that the Impeachment Court is Functus Officio. GUINGONA. 2001. TEOFISTO T. Even if petitioner can prove that he did not resign. The Supreme Court rejected petitioner’s argument that he cannot be prosecuted for the reason that he must first be convicted in the impeachment proceedings. it is untenable for petitioner to demand that he should first be impeached and then convicted before he can be prosecuted. the Senate passed Senate Resolution No. the records do not show that the trial judge developed actual bias against appellant as a consequence of the extensive media coverage of the pre-trial and trial of his case. he cannot successfully claim that he is a President on leave on the ground that he is merely unable to govern temporarily. The debates in the Constitutional Commission make it clear that when impeachment proceedings have become moot due to the resignation of the President.” The Senate also passed Senate Resolution No. Also. That claim has been laid to rest by Congress and the decision that respondent Arroyo is the de jure President made by a co-equal branch of government cannot be reviewed by the Supreme Court. EXTENDING ITS CONGRATULATIONS AND EXPRESSING ITS SUPPORT FOR HER ADMINISTRATION AS A PARTNER IN THE ATTAINMENT OF THE NATION’S GOALS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. The rule is that unlawful acts of public officials are not acts of the State and the officer who acts illegally is not acting as such but stands in the same footing as any other trespasser. The House of Representative passed on January 24.” Since the Impeachment Court is now functus officio. petitioner cannot demand as a condition sine qua non to his criminal prosecution before the Ombudsman that he be convicted in the impeachment proceedings. AS VICE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES” Implicitly clear in that recognition is the premise that the inability of petitioner Estrada is no longer temporary. the proper criminal and civil cases may already be filed against him. The press release was petitioner’s valedictory. Section 11 of Article VII provides that “Congress has the ultimate authority under the Constitution to determine whether the President is incapable of performing his functions. 2001 House Resolution No.

Militante v. IBP v. HELD: The mere invocation by the IBP of its duty to preserve the rule of law is not sufficient to clothe it with standing in this case. 2000) FACTS: Petitioner filed a petition in his capacity as taxpayer questioning the constitutionality of the creation by the President of seventy positions for presidential advisers on the ground that the President did not have the power to create these positions.R. As taxpayers. 1967 indentified 244 sites in Metropolitan Manila as areas for priority development and urban land reform zones. This is too general an interest which is shared by the whole citizenry. the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (HSRC) declared the lots of petitioner to be outside the reform area. petitioner questioned the constitutionality of PD 1315. IBP has no standing. There was no exercise by Congress of its taxing or spending powers. V. The Senate concurred with the VFA. 10. 1980. Because the National Housing Authority (NHA) failed to evict the squatters on his lots. 2000) FACTS: Pres. No. On May 14. An amount was set aside for its operation from the funds of the Office of the President.R. Petitioner. they failed to show how the VFA will involve the exercise of Congress of its taxing or spending powers. 107040 (April 12. No. Marcos issued PD 1315 in 1975 expropriating 40 hectares in Caloocan for distribution to their occupants. filed a petition assailing constitutionality of the Commission. Narvasa G. HELD: Petitioner has not proven that he has sustained any injury as a result of the appointment of presidential advisers. in his capacity as taxpayer. 19 .presented during the trial. Zamora G. Further. Proclamation No. 2000) FACTS: In view of the alarming increase in violent crimes in Metropolitan Manila. Zamora G. The lots of petitioners were included in the coverage of the decree. 2000) FACTS: The president issued EO 43 creating the Preparatory Commission on Constitutional Reform to recommend amendments to the Constitution. In 1981. HELD: Petitioners failed to show that they have sustained or are in danger of sustaining any direct injury as a result of the enforcement of VFA. However. Gonzales v. Judicial Department ς A. 138570 (Oct. Narvasa G. Petitioner cannot question the constitutionality of the Commission in his capacity as taxpayer. these lots were not among those acquired by government in 1978 and 1979. HELD: The Preparatory Commission was created by the President by virtue of EO 43. Petitioners who are taxpayers and members of Congress questioned its validity. the President ordered the PNP and the Phil. 2000) FACTS: Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) was entered into by the Philippines and United States to regulate conditions of presence of US military personnels in the Philippines. 140835 (August 14. 140835 (August 14. 141284 (August 15.R. Marines to conduct joint visibility patrols for crime prevention and suppression. Appellant has the burden to prove this actual bias and he has not discharged the burden. No. Judicial Review Gonzales v. Members of Congress’ standing cannot be upheld absent a clear showing of any direct injury to their person or to the institution to which they belong. The presumed possible injury is highly speculative. The IBP has failed to show any specific injury it has suffered or may suffer by virtue of the questioned order. The IBP questioned validity of the order invoking its responsibility to uphold the rule of law.R. No. CA GR. Bayan v. No.

R. HELD: The decision does not indicate what the trial court found in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to consider them straightforward when they are in fact contradictory and confused. After summarizing the testimonies. Nadera 324 SCRA 490 FACTS: The accused was charged with rape. The accused argued that the decision did not comply with Section 14. the demeanor of the defense witnesses were not credible.HELD: The lots of petitioners are not in danger of expropriation. It is doubtful that the government will still desire to expropriate the lots of petitioner. HELD: The decision of the RTC fell short of the constitutional requirement. The trial court convicted him. HELD: The trial court failed to state the factual and legal reasons on which it based the conviction of the accused. 2000) FACTS: The trial court convicted the accused of rape. Dumaguing G. People v. 2000) FACTS: The trial court convicted the accused of illegal recruitment and estafa. No. There is nothing to indicate the reason for the decision. It then stated that the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution convinced the court. Ordonez G. No. Article VIII of the constitution. 2. 2000) FACTS: The accused was convicted of homicide by the trial court. The decision failed to comply with the constitutional requirement that a decision must expressly state the facts and the law on which it is based Yao v. PD. In 1987. Parties to a litigation should be informed of how it was decided. Petitioner appealed to RTC. it stated that it found no cogent reason to disturb the finding of fact of the MTC. he is estopped from asserting that PD 1315 to be unconstitutional. 135516 (September 20. The decision summarized the testimonies of witnesses from both sides. HELD: The trial court went over the testimonies of every witness of both parties. Neither does the decision contain any justification for the appreciation of aggravating circumstances against the accused. Madrid v.R. Moreover. 1315 was issued in 1975. the HSRC certified that the lots were outside the Urban Land Reform Zone. Form of Decision 1. CA GR. 132428 (October 24. The decision merely narrated the evidence of the prosecution and a republic act. CA GR No. The decision in question should be struck close as a nullity. No reason is given why the trial court found the testimonies of the witnesses credible. Void Decision People v. The decision simply stated that the accused was guilty of raping his own daughter and that the evidence of the prosecution was not controverted by the accused. 130683 (May 31. The RTC confirmed his conviction. No. Valid Decision People v. HELD: The trial court failed to comply with the requirement that it should state clearly and distinctly the facts on which it is based. B. 2000) FACTS: The MTC convicted petitioner of unfair competition. because it merely paraphrased the testimonies of the witnesses. the trial court stated in its decision that it found that the accused 20 . The decision added that the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength were present. 129593 (July 10. In its decision. with an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusion of the court. petitioner negotiated with the NHA for the price of his lots therefore. On the other hand.

119903 (August 15. The operation of the rotational plan requires that the terms of the first Commissioners should start on a common date and any vacancy before the expiration of the term should be filled only for the unexpired balance of the term. who were election officers to other stations. that one of the complainants had no job waiting. irrespective of variations in the dates of appointments and qualifications of the appointees in order that the expiration of the first terms should lead to the regular recurrence of the two-year interval between the expiration of the terms. HELD: The constitution adopted a rotational system for the appointment of the Chairman and Commissioners of the Constitutional Commissions. No. The evidence or intention to reassign respondent had no definite period. Petitioners argued that the law violated their security of tenure. 2000) FACTS: Respondent was appointed School Division Superintendent. Zenarosa GR No. 1999. 1999.informed the complainants that they would be going to Korea to work when in fact they landed in Kuala Lumpur instead. B. 2. 129118 (July 19. Comelec G. Consequently. 2000) HELD: A government employee may be transferred. the Comelec reassigned petitioners. 2000) FACTS: On June 11. 1993 and was confirmed by the Commission on Appointments on September 7. Commission on Audit G. In accordance with it. CA G. VI. Culture and Sports. De Guzman v. No. Padolino v. She took her oath of office on June 22.R. the President reassigned him as Superintendent of the Marikina Institute of Science and Technology on the ground that he is an expert in vocational and technical education. as the beginning of the term of office is understood to coincide with the effectivity of the Constitution upon its ratification. Reassignment Chato v. Gloria v. HELD: What the guarantee of security of tenure seeks to prevent is the capricious exercise of the power to dismiss. and the other complainant landed in jail at the time he arrived in Kuala Lumpur and had to be returned to the Philippines. Constitutional Commissions A. Quezon City. Fernandez 21 . Where it is the legislature which furnishes the ground for the transfer of a class of employees. 1993. Respondent questioned the validity of his reassignment on the ground that it is indefinite and it violated his security of tenure.R. Term of Commissioners Gaminde v. 140335 (December 13. The Commission on Audit issued a decision that her term expired on Feb.R. Division of City Schools. the President appointed petitioner as Commissioner of the CSC for a term expiring on February 2. 2000) FACTS: Section 44 of the Voter’s Registration Act provided that no election officer shall hold office in a particular municipality or city for more than 4 years. 1987 is the proper starting point of the terms of office of the first appointees to the Constitutional Commission. no such capriciousness can be raised for so long as the remedy proposed to cure a perceived evil is germane to the purpose of the law. 1993. No. HELD: There is nothing to show that the reassignment of respondent is temporary. 120539 (October 20. Upon recommendation of the Secretary of Education. the term of the first Chairman and Commissioners of the Constitutional Commissions must start on a common date. Civil Service Commission ςΙ 1. The decision complied with the requirement. It is violative of his security of tenure. February 2.

HELD: The order violated the security of tenure of respondent and hence invalid. Later.R. No bona fide reorganization of the NPC having been mandated by Congress and insofar as RA 8851 declares the office of the petitioner as expired resulting in their separation from office. Judicial Review Ambil v. Section 8 of Republic Act. Reorganization Canonizado v. As respondent does not have the required Rank. HELD: Petitioners are members of the civil service. HELD: The rank level of respondent is Rank level III. Bacal G. 2000) 22 . division and section chiefs. The order contains no definite duration of the reassignment.G. The powers and duties of the National Police Commission remain basically unchanged. Commission on Elections 1.R. No. Power to Appoint Employees De Guzman v. the National Police Commission was under the Department of Interior and Local Government. Upon change of administration. took effect. Under RA No. she was designated as acting chief Public Attorney.R. 2000) FACTS: Respondent was Finance and Management Division Chief. 8851 provided that the terms of office of the incumbent commissioners were deemed expired. 2. Petitioners claimed that this violated their security of tenure. 133511 (October 10. 139382 (December 6. 8551 did not expressly abolish the positions of petitioners. The order provided that their return would be the subject of a separate order. The petitioner. Petitioner argue that the law undermined the constitutional authority of the Comelec to appoint its own officials. respondent was appointed Regional Director. 129118 (July 19. Aguirre 323 SCRA 312 FACTS: Petitioners were incumbent commissioners of the National Police Commission when Republic Act. In accordance with it. her appointment to that position cannot be considered permanent and she cannot claim the right to a security of tenure. Pursuant to the order. No. 2000) FACTS: Respondent passed the Career Executive Service Examination. Republic Act No. She was appointed Regional Director of the Public Attorney’s Office. The organizational structure and the composition of the National Police Commission remain essentially the same except for the addition of the Chief of PNP as ex-officio member. No.R. HELD: The law merely provides the basis for the transfer of an election officers and does not deprive the Comelec of its power to appoint its officials. Lack of Eligibility Cuevas v. Respondent argued that this violated her security of tenure. while under Republic Act. 2. the Secretary of Science and Technology issued an order providing for the reassignment of branch. Respondent argued she was removed without cause. No. it must be struck down for being constitutionally infirm. otherwise known as the PNP Reform and Reorganization Act of 1998. The position of Chief Public Attorney required rank level I. No. 3. 8851. No. Comelec G. Comelec G. 6975. No. who were election officers to other stations. respondent was reassigned to the Office of the Director of Finance and Management Service in Taguig. The reassignment of respondent reduced her to a mere subordinate without authority to supervise anyone. 143398 (October 25. it is tantamount to removing civil service employees from office without legal cause therefore. C. the Comelec reassigned petitioners. 8551 it is made an agency attached to the Department of Interior and Local Government. 2000) FACTS: Section 44 of the Voter’s Registration Act provided that no election officer shall hold office in a particular municipality or city for more than 4 years.

HELD: The issuance of the Resolution of the Comelec was a ministerial duty which may be enjoined by law and is part of its administrative functions. HELD: Considering that the resolution was issued only 20 days before the election and that the petitioners got a copy of it only on May 4. Petitioner. No. ABS-CBN v. Respondent also filed certiorari with Comelec en banc which was later denied. he filed an election protest in the RTC.R. A week later. 132603 (September 8. 139853 (Sept. A new member was appointed to replace the retired commissioner. A member of its first division prepared the resolution but he retired before it could be promulgated. 2000) FACTS: As a result of an audit of the Fishery Sector Program Fund of the Department of Agriculture. argued that since the Fishery Sector Program is a special program for research and 23 . because it had not been promulgated. there is no reason why petitions for certiorari relating to incidents of election protest should not be referred first to a Division of the Comelec for resolution. there was hardly any opportunity to move for reconsideration and to obtain and swift resolution in time for the May 11 elections. The RTC denied motion. It must first be reviewed by the Comelec en banc before it can be brought to the SC. 2000) FACTS: The Sangguniang Pambayan of Calaca Batangas approved an ordinance merging Barangay San Rafael with another Barangay. Petitioner won. V was found to not have complied with the rules on bidding. Salva v. If the principal case is cognizable on appeal by a Division. No. Petitioner was proclaimed elected. 2000) FACTS: Petitioner and respondent were opposing candidates for mayor. Decision Soller v. The first division issued a resolution declaring the previously prepared resolution void. submission of documents to support claim of disbursement. Commission on Audit G. Solicitor General argued that case should be dismissed for failure to exhaust all available remedies by failure to file a motion for reconsideration before the Comelec. The RTC ruled that it had no jurisdiction over the case because only the Supreme Court can review the resolution of the Commission on Elections. 1998 which prohibited the conduct of exit polls.R. HELD: Petition should be denied because the SC had no power to review interlocutory orders or final resolutions of a division of Comelec. The Comelec passed a resolution calling for a plebiscite.FACTS: Petitioner and respondent were opposing candidates for governor. forum shopping. Commission on Audit Laysa v. Comelec G. The petition also involves transcendental constitutional issues therefore. and failure to state a cause of action. Respondent filed with Comelec a petition for annulment of proclamation. 12813 (October 18. Any question pertaining to its validity may be taken in an ordinary civil action before the RTC. No. Respondent filed election protest with the Commission on Elections. 1998. HELD: The authority to resolve petitions for certiorari involving incidental issues of election protests falls within the jurisdiction of the Division of the Comelec and not with the Comelec en banc. direct resort to SC is justified. The Sanggunian Panlalawigan passed a resolution instructing the Comelec to hold a plebiscite. D.5. Regional Office No. Petitioners questioned the validity of the resolution by filing a petition for certiorari in the SC. Director of the office. Petitioner moved to dismiss the protest on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. 3. Comelec 323 SCRA 811 FACTS: Comelec approved Resolution 98-1419 on April 21.R. The officials and residents of San Rafael filed a case in RTC to prohibit the plebiscite on the ground that the ordinance and the resolutions were invalid. Makalintal G.

2000) 24 . No. Gangan G. 2000) FACTS: Upon complaint of an employee of a corporation which was authorized by the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office to operate a small town lottery. a private lawyer. Local Government Pimentel v. HELD: Verification of whether officials of an agency properly discharged their fiscal responsibilities and whether an agency complied with internal audit controls in the collection and disbursement of government funds are part of the functions of the Commission on Audit. HELD: The decision of the Merit System Protection Board has become final and executory. 2. Sandiganbayan G. bureaucratic adherence to prescribed rules and procedures stifles research and development. since he was hired without complying with Circular No. Aguirre G. The circular simply sets forth the prerequisite for the government agency in hiring a private lawyer which are reasonable safeguards to prevent irregular. Form of Complaint Raro v. Petitioners filed a petition for reinstatement with the Merit Protection System Board.R. 108431 (July 14.development. 2000) FACTS: Petitioners were permanent employees of the Provincial Engineering Office who were dismissed by the governor allegedly to scale down the operations of that office. The charges are valid. 1. The decision became final. The Commission on Audit cannot be allowed to set it aside since payment cannot be described as irregular. HELD: The claim is bereft of merit. 132988 July 19.R. Petitioner argued that the complaint was sworn to before a notary public and the affidavits of witnesses against him were sworn to before a provincial fiscal not deputized by the Ombudsman. Article XI of the Constitution. 86-255 which requires prior written approval by the Solicitor General as well as the Commission on Audit. 130685 (March 21. Investigation Raro v. The Commission on Audit disallowed the payment of back salaries on the ground that it should be the personal liability of the governor since illegal dismissal was done in bad faith. No. efficiency and length of service of the employees. No. Ombudsman 1. excessive. The Commission on Audit disallowed the payment of his compensation. HELD: Under Section 12. 2000) FACTS: The National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) hired the legal service of petitioner. unnecessary.R. Uy v. unnecessary.R. No. VII. The board held that the reduction in work force was not done in accordance with the civil service rules since it was made without comparing the relative fitness. 2000) A. Sandiganbayan G. Petitioner argued that circular is unconstitutional because it restricted the practice of law. excessive and extravagant expenditures of government funds.R. 140563 (July 14. It ordered the reinstatement of petitioners and payment of their back salaries. the Ombudsman is required to act on complaints filed in any form or manner. extravagant or unconscionable. Prevention of Unnecessary Expenses Polloso v. Commission on Audit G. 108431 (July 14. the Ombudsman filed a criminal case against petitioner for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. No.

NO. They are the ones who will direct and supervise the deployment of the Philippine Marines. The owner and the driver filed a case against them for the recovery of the possession of the motor vehicle. CA G. No. The members of the PNP are the ones in charge of the operations. since the head of the PNP is the one actually vested with authority in these operations. for which Senate concurrence was sought and received on May 27. the office of the Ombudsman abdicated its duty to conduct preliminary investigation.R. HELD: The acts for which petitioners are being called to account were performed by them in the discharge of their official duties. The civilian character of the police force is also not affected by this participation. A suit against them is a suit against the state. Petitioner argued that by referring the complaint to the NBI. 2000) The Visiting Forces Agreement. The NBI recommended the prosecution of the case. 2000) FACTS: The petitioner argues that the order of the President for the Philippine National Police and the Philippine Marines to carry out joint visibility patrols to prevent and restrain crime. NO. 141284 (August 15. HELD: The SC held that there was actually no appointment of the members of the Armed Forces to civilian positions. 2000) FACTS: Petitioners. The participation of the Chief of Staff in civilian law enforcement does not mean that he was appointed to a civilian post. 1999. 25 . 138570 (October 10. Applicability Calub v. B. State immunity from Suit A. Zamora G.R.R. NO. It cannot prosper without the consent of the state. 115634 (April 27. Philippine National Police Integrated Bar Of The Philippines v. is the subject of a number of Constitutional challenges. What was delegated was only the fact-finding function. violated the principle of supremacy of civilian authority over the military and the civilian character of the police force.FACTS: The Deputy Ombudsman referred the complaint against petitioner for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act to the NBI for investigation. HELD: The participation of the Philippine Marines constitutes a permissible use of military assets for civilian law enforcement.R. Law Enforcement Armed Forces Integrated Bar Of The Philippines v. who were officers of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources seized two motor vehicles for transporting illegally cut lumber. Visiting Forces Agreement Bayan v. The members of the Philippine Marines were not integrated as members of the PNP. preparatory to the preliminary investigation still to be conducted by the Ombudsman. HELD: The Office of the Ombudsman did not delegate the conduct of the preliminary investigation to the NBI. Zamora G. violated the prohibition on the appointment of the members of the Armed Forces who are in active service to civilian positions. 141284 (August 15. 3. 2000) FACTS: The petitioner argues that the order of the President for the Philippine National Police and the Philippine Marines to carry out joint visibility patrols to prevent and restrain crime. Zamora G.

have no standing. the VFA is an agreement which defines the treatment of US troops visiting the Philippines. Article VII deals with treaties or international agreements in general. All treaties. or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and. XVIII of the Constitution? Section 25. A party bringing a suit challenging the Constitutionality of a law must show not only that the law is invalid. or legislators to question the constitutionality of the VFA? Petitioners Bayan Muna. The Constitution contains two provisions requiring the concurrence of the Senate on treaties or international agreements. inasmuch as no public funds raised by taxation are involved in this case. or section 25. etc. VII. ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose. regardless of subject matter. or facilities. Under this provision. On the whole. Art. Section 21. in which case. they cannot sue. The IBP lacks the legal capacity to bring this suit in the absence of a board resolution from its Board of Governors authorizing its National President to commence the present action. It provides for the guidelines to govern such visits of military personnel. troops. the concurrence of the Senate is only one of the requisites to render compliance with the constitutional requirements and to consider the agreement binding on the Philippines.) do not possess the requisite locus standi to sue. To a certain extent. taxpayers." Section 25. when the Congress so requires. he must specifically prove that he has sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation and that he will sustain a direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the questioned statute or contract. as taxpayers. Undoubtedly. movement of vessel and aircraft. troops. as the VFA involves the presence of foreign military troops in the Philippines. Sec 25 further requires that "foreign military bases. foreign military bases. Issue 2: Is the VFA governed by section 21. In the absence of a clear showing of any direct injury to their person or to the institution to which they belong. Article XVIII. Clearly. Art. and further defines the rights of the US and RP government in the matter of criminal jurisdiction. petitioners. ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a national referendum held for that purpose if so required by Congress. should apply in the instant case. not section 21. A taxpayer's suit refers to a case where the act complained of directly involves the illegal disbursement of public funds derived from taxation.Issue 1: Do the Petitioners have legal standing as concerned citizens. provides:"[a]fter the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America concerning Military Bases. and not merely that he suffers thereby in some indefinite way." Section 21. and recognized as such by the other contracting state. troops or facilities in the Philippines. coverage. applies. It is not sufficient that he has merely a general interest common to all members of the public. import and export of equipment. or facilities" may be allowed in the Philippines only by virtue of a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate. which specifically deals with treaties involving foreign military bases. Section 25. Section 25. Art. Similarly. In contrast. 26 . the concurrence of at least two-thirds (2/3) of all the Members of the Senate is required to make the treaty valid and binding to the Philippines. This provision lays down the general rule on treaties. As taxpayers. and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State. the Court may brush aside the procedural barrier and takes cognizance of the petitions. Article XVIII is a special provision that applies to treaties which involve the presence of foreign military bases. in view of the paramount importance and the constitutional significance of the issues raised. Article XVIII. requires the concurrence of the Senate to be valid and effective. Before he can invoke the power of judicial review. Petitioners have failed to show that they are in any danger of direct injury as a result of the VFA. the petitioner-legislators (Tanada. Arroyo. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) is also stripped of standing in these cases. or particular designation or appellation. materials and supplies. etc. troops. but that he has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement. have no legal standing to assail the legality of the VFA. and in the absence of any allegation by petitioners that public funds are being misspent or illegally expended. Notwithstanding. VII. Article VII reads: “[n]o treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate. Art XVIII. they have failed to establish that the VFA involves the exercise by Congress of its taxing or spending powers.

when so required by Congress. but it was denied. With the ratification of the VFA it now becomes obligatory and incumbent on our part. or facilities in the country. there is indeed compliance with the mandate of the Constitution. freedom. or concurrence. We do not subscribe to the argument that Section 25. Issue 3: Was Sec 25 Art XVIII’s requisites satisfied to make the VFA effective? Section 25. but merely foreign troops and facilities. this prohibition is not limited to the entry of troops and facilities without any foreign bases being established. it also 27 . the power to ratify is vested in the President and not. The clause does not refer to "foreign military bases. Article II declares that the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace. There is no dispute as to the presence of the first two requisites in the case of the VFA. is that the ratification by the President of the VFA. is to accord strict meaning to the phrase. The role of the Senate is limited only to giving or withholding its consent. under principles of international law (pacta sunt servanda). through Ambassador Hubbard. unless the following conditions are sufficiently met: (a) it must be under a treaty. filed a complaint for collection of a sum of money against the company with prayer for preliminary attachment where PCGG was not impleaded as defendant nor was the sequestration made known to the RTC. are involved in the VFA. As to condition (c). and the concurrence of the Senate. When no distinction is made by law. Ratification is generally held to be an executive act. undertaken by the head of the state. should be taken as a clear and unequivocal expression of our nation's consent to be bound by said treaty. equality. troops. through which the formal acceptance of the treaty is proclaimed. ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum. The Constitution makes no distinction between "transient" and "permanent". (b) the treaty must be duly concurred in by the Senate and. A State may provide in its domestic legislation the process of ratification of a treaty. Worth stressing too. the Court should not distinguish. in the legislature. in which case the significance thus attached to them prevails. troops. the Court held that the phrase "recognized as a treaty" means that the other contracting party accepts or acknowledges the agreement as a treaty. and binds itself further to comply with its treaty obligations. such that three different situations are contemplated — a military treaty the subject of which could be either (a) foreign bases. PCGG filed a Motion for Reconsideration. 18 is in accordance with the Constitution. with the concomitant duty to uphold the obligations and responsibilities embodied thereunder. Article XVIII that requires foreign troops or facilities to be stationed or placed permanently in the Philippines. It is specious to argue that Section 25. as there were at least 16 Senators that concurred. to the ratification. which was later lifted by the Sandiganbayan. cooperation and amity with all nations. Article XVIII disallows foreign military bases. To require the US to submit the VFA to the US Senate for concurrence pursuant to its Constitution." Stated differently. Well-entrenched is the principle that the words used in the Constitution are to be given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed. The proscription covers "foreign military bases. Sequestration Republic v. justice. troops. to be bound by the terms of the agreement. In our jurisdiction. Article XVIII is inapplicable to mere transient agreements for the reason that there is no permanent placing of structure for the establishment of a military base. The records reveal that the US Government. Private respondent. The concurrence handed by the Senate through Resolution No. has stated that the US has fully committed to living up to the terms of the VFA. and (c) recognized as a treaty by the other contracting state. Article VII will find applicability with regard to determining the number of votes required to obtain the valid concurrence of the Senate.however. the provisions of Section 21. or facilities. The Court granted the preliminary attachment. Article XVIII. as commonly believed. or (c) foreign facilities — any of the three standing alone places it under the coverage of Section 25. (b) foreign troops. no less than Section 2. and because of failure of company to answer complaint. Saludares 327 SCRA 449 FACTS: The PCGG issued a writ of sequestration against the Lianga Bay Logging Company. Article XVIII is not controlling since no foreign military bases. We find nothing in Section 25. Its language should be understood in the sense they have in common use. Thus. For as long as the US accepts or acknowledges the VFA as a treaty. on the other hand. or facilities" collectively but treats them as separate and independent subjects.

Power To Sue And Be Sued Mancenido v. 2000) FACTS: The Sangguniang Panglungsod of Mandaluyong City issued a resolution authorizing Mayor Abalos to institute expropriation proceedings over the property of Suguitan. Powers A. B. On appeal. It held that the authority is lodged in the City Council of Makati by ordinance. Metropolitan Manila Development Authority MMDA v. In this petition for review on certiorari. Inc. filed a case against the provincial officials to compel them to pay their claims for unpaid salary increases. However. 2000) FACTS: Petitioners. CA G. it could not be interfered with by the RTC because the PCGG is a coordinate and equal body. the appellate court ruled that the MMDA has no authority to order the opening of Neptune Street. Bel-Air Village Association. respondents could not be deemed to be improperly represented by private counsel. The Court said that the disputed properties of the company were already under custodia legis by virtue of a valid writ of sequestration issued by the PCGG when the judge issued the writ of attachment. HELD: The MMDA has no power to enact ordinances for the welfare of the community. 118605(April 12. could result in personal liability. The court later issued an order of expropriation. is illegal.declared the company in default and ruled in favor of private respondent. The local government unit failed to comply with this requirement when they exercised their power of eminent domain through a resolution. Expropriation Heirs Of Suguitan v. The trial court denied issuance of a preliminary injunction. 135962 (March 27. if granted.R. 139087 (March 14. 28 . Petitioners argue that the local government unit’s delegated power of eminent domain must be exercised through the issuance of an ordinance. City Of Mandaluyong G. NO. Petitioner argues that RTC has no jurisdiction over the case since the sequestered assets are under custodia legis of the PCGG. II. Hence.R. the nature of the action and the relief sought are to be considered. G. they argue that the CA erred in recognizing the authority of the council of the provincial officials to file a notice of appeal. NO. Since the writ of sequestration was already subsisting. and cause the demolition of its perimeter walls. the order of attachment was declared null and void. HELD: The SC held that in resolving whether a local government official may secure the services of private counsel in an action filed against him in his official capacity. not by mere resolution. who are public school teachers. Hence this petition. HELD: The law may delegate the power of eminent domain to local government units that shall exercise the same through an ordinance. Public Corporations I. HELD: The SC ruled that the order of default of the RTC is affirmed but should be held in abeyance until the sequestration case is determined.R. its proposed opening of Neptune Street which was not mandated by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Makati City. 2000) FACTS: Respondent filed a case against petitioner enjoining them from opening the Neptune Street and prohibiting the demolition of the perimeter wall. The Local Government Code’s requirement of an ordinance prevails over the Implementing Rules and Regulations requiring the issuance of a resolution. In view of the damages sought in the case at bar which. NO. The city filed a complaint for expropriation when Suguitan refused to sell the property. The city later assumed possession of the property by virtue of a writ of possession issued by the trial court.

V. III. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW I. they must first apply for accreditation with the Institute of 29 . Power Philippine Registered Electrical Practicioners v. Regulations A. However. When the SC ruled that the substitution was invalid. Respondent previously served as governor of Misamis Oriental for 3 consecutive terms before he registered as a voter in Cagayan de Oro City and subsequently ran for mayor. NO. Zamora 323 SCRA 875 FACTS: A supplemental budget was passed by the councilors upon three readings held on the same day. He bought a house in Cagayan de Oro City in 1973.R. COMELEC G. Recall Afiado v. Registration Of Tricycle And Licensing Of Drivers Land Transportation Office v. The opponent filed a petition asking for the annulment of the substitution. The father ran for a 4th term but withdrew. The proclaimed mayor at that time was the son of the previous mayor who had already served for 3 consecutive terms. HELD: The specific purpose of the preparatory recall assembly was to revive the vice-mayor. Qualification Of Local Elective Officials Torayno v. tricycles in particular. 2000) FACTS: This case involves a petition for quo warranto filed against the respondent on the ground that he was not able to fulfill the requirement of residency of 1-yr in Cagayan de Oro City when he ran for mayor. Before these credit units could be earned. They were charged with misconduct. LGUs have the power to regulate the operation of tricycle for hire and to grant franchise for the operation thereof. He actually resided there before he registered as a voter in that city in 1997. Francia 322 SCRA 587 FACTS: Petitioner assails a resolution issued by the Board of Electrical Engineering which provided for a Continuing Professional Education (CPE) Program for electrical engineers which required that they must earn credit units of CPE before their licenses could be renewed. IV. Hence this petition. HELD: Respondent was able to fulfill the residency requirement needed for him to qualify as a mayoralty candidate. and was substituted by the son.R. as well as to issue licenses for the driving thereof. has likewise devolved to local government units. Under the Local Government Code.C. 137329 (August 9. NO. COMELEC G. the vice-mayor became the mayor. City Of Butuan 322 SCRA 805 FACTS: The issue in this case is whether under the present set-up the power of the LTO to register. the resolution does not apply to the vice-mayor anymore. 2000) FACTS: This case involves a petition asking for the annulment of a resolution calling for the recall of the vice-mayor. The barangay officials in a preparatory recall assembly passed this resolution. HELD: The SC ruled that the registration and licensing functions are vested in the LTO while franchising and regulatory responsibilities are vested in the LTFRB. HELD: There is no law prohibiting the holding of the three readings of a proposed ordinance in one session day. since she gave up the office of vice-mayor when she assumed the position of mayor. Legislation Malonzo v. 141787 (September 18.

The National Housing Authority signed a contract to sell with respondent. NO. 2000) FACTS: On October 23. HELD: The SC ruled that the 30-day period of appeal is subject to the qualification that there are no other statutory periods of appeal applicable. 2000) FACTS: Zamboanga del Norte Electric Cooperation increased the fuel compensation charge without the approval of the Energy Regulatory Board. Office Of The President G. NO. and sent a notice of demolition to petitioner. Hence this petition. A directory order cannot be characterized as an exercise of the power 30 .R. Local fiscal autonomy does not rule out any manner of national government intervention by way of supervision.O. Pimentel v. Section 15 of Presidential Decree No. 266. HELD: Section 1 of the AO does not violate local fiscal autonomy. petitioner filed a complaint with the RTC.R. which imposed upon registered professionals. 1344 provide that the decision of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board shall become final after the lapse of 15 days from the date of its receipt. No. CA G. 2000) FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking to annul Section 1 of Administrative Order No. fiscal and otherwise. As a result. HELD: The Energy Regulatory Board has jurisdiction over the fixing of power rates to be charged by electric cooperatives. Series of 1987. HELD: The SC ruled that petitioner should have exhausted all applicable administrative remedies. 957 and 1344. Zabat v. All decisions of the Awards and Arbitration Committee are subject to review by the General Manager. AO 372 is merely directory and has been issued by the President consistent with his powers of supervision over local governments. 957 and Section 2 of P. prohibition against bills of attainder and ex post facto laws. Petitioner argues that the resolution is violative of the equal protection and due process clauses.R. No. and mandate for the protection of the rights of workers. issued by the President. petitioner got a copy of the decision of the Board of Commissioner of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. 18. 1995.R. insofar as it requires local government units to reduce their expenditures by 25% of their authorized regular appropriations for nonpersonal services and to enjoin respondents from implementing Section 4 of the Order. the completion of the CPE as a pre-requisite for the renewal of their licenses. CA G. but this was denied for having been filed outside of the required period. NO.Integrated Electrical Engineers of the Philippines. The period of appeal of 30 days in the Rules of Procedure of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board is invalid for being in conflict with Presidential Decree Nos. 372. 126999 (August 30. which withholds a portion of their internal revenue allotments. HELD: The SC denied the petition for being moot and academic. President Ramos had later issued E. 109853 (October 11. 1995. Petitioner filed an appeal to the Office of the President on November 20. Petitioner should have appealed the award of the lot and the execution of the contract to sell to the Office of the President. 2000) FACTS: Petitioner filed this case questioning the award of a certain lot to the respondent by the Awards and Arbitration Committee of the National Housing Authority which declared petitioners as absentee owners.D. in order to ensure that local programs. 132988 (July 19. Aguirre G. Petitioner should have exhausted the available administrative remedies before resorting to the court. SGMC Realty Corporation v. No. Province Of Zamboanga Del Norte v. Petitioner argues that the period for appeal is actually 30 days pursuant to the Rules of Procedure of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board and Administrative Order No. 122089 (August 23. are consistent with national goals.

assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of RA 8371. In fact. How G. Section 4 of AO 372 cannot be upheld. 12 dated July 3. public respondent did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it suspended arraignment to await the resolution of her petition for review with the Secretary of Justice. the court is in complete control of the case and any disposition therein is subject to its sound discretion. et al FACTS: Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa brought this suit for prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers. The authority of the Secretary of Justice to review resolutions of his subordinates even after an information has already been filed in court does not present an irreconcilable conflict with the Speedy Trial Act. 140863 (August 22. A basic feature of local fiscal autonomy is the automatic release of the shares of LGUs in the national internal revenue. It does not contain any sanction in case of noncompliance. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources. In view of this memorandum. and (4) any adjustment in the allotment shall in no case be less than 30% of the collection of national internal revenue taxes of the third fiscal year preceding the current one. otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. R. Section 7 of the Act prescribing the 30-day period for the arraignment of the accused is not absolute. The Commission on Human Rights asserts that IPRA is an expression of the principle of parens patriae and that the State has the responsibility to protect and guarantee the rights of those who are at a serious disadvantage like indigenous people. 31 . Thus. Procedurally speaking. and may either agree or disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice. The Solicitor General is of the view that the IPRA is partly unconstitutional on the ground that it grants ownership over natural resources to indigenous peoples and prays that the petition be granted in part. after the filing of the information. Section 4 which orders the withholding of 10% of the LGU’s IRA clearly contravenes the Constitution and the law. 2000) FACTS: The question raised in this case is whether or not the trial court can indefinitely suspend the arraignment of the accused until the petition for review with the Secretary of Justice has been resolved. Interior and Local Government. It prays that the petition be dismissed. without violating RA 8493. Solar Entertainment and People of the Philippines v. Section 10 of the law enumerates periods of delay that shall be excluded in computing the time within which trial must commence. (3) the corresponding recommendation of the secretaries of the Department of Finance. Recently. HELD: The power of the Secretary of Justice to review resolutions of his subordinates even after the information has already been filed in court is well-settled. The AO is intended only to advise all government agencies and instrumentalities to undertake cost-reduction measures that will help maintain economic stability in the country. The Local Government Code also allows the President to interfere in local fiscal matters. and Budget and Management. the indefinite suspension of proceedings in the trial court because of a pending petition for review with the Secretary of Justice is now unlikely to happen. otherwise known as “The Speedy Trial Act of 1998”. The decision to suspend arraignment to await the resolution of an appeal with the Secretary of Justice is an exercise of such discretion. This is mandated by the Constitution and the Local Government Code. The exceptions provided in the Act reflect the fundamentally recognized principle that the concept of “speedy trial” is a relative term and must necessarily be a flexible concept. the DOJ issued Memorandum Order No. provided that certain requisites are met: (1) an unmanaged public sector deficit of the national government. 2000 mandating that the period for the disposition of appeals/petition for review shall be 75 days.of control. Isagani Cruz and Europa v. No. The SC stressed that the court is not bound to adopt the resolution of the Secretary of Justice since the court is mandated to independently evaluate or assess the merits of the case. (2) consultations with the presiding officers of the Senate and the House of Representatives and the presidents of the various local leagues. Hon.

Petitioner argues that the dismissal was legal since the private respondent’s appointment lacks the requisite confirmation by the Board of Regents. HELD: Ad interim appointments are permanent but their terms are only until the Board disapproves them. Termination Salvador v. Administrative Case Conseñares v. 2000) FACTS: The Secretary of Education.HELD: After due deliberation. As the votes were equally divided and the necessary majority was not obtained. Rights. pursuant to Rule 56. This resulted in the conversion of the positions of several employees to coterminous. Pamarang 325 SCRA 440. he enjoys security of tenure as guaranteed by law. Culture And Sports v. 32 . 127501 (May 5. HELD: Petitioner was covered by the decision of the court and thus entitled to reinstatement.R. Privileges And Benefits Secretary of Education. thus incurring unauthorized absences for participating in a mass action. IV. the petition is DISMISSED. 7 voted to dismiss the petition. However. The position was subsequently reclassified and retitled to Executive Assistant II. Petitioner later filed a complaint along with other employees. private respondent was later dismissed. 128559 (October 4. She was later extended a permanent appointment when she acquired a Career Service Professional Eligibility. No. 128559 (October 4. the case was redeliberated upon. No. Since the private respondent holds an appointment under permanent status. after redeliberation. CA G. NO.O.R. 192. III. and ordered the reinstatement of the employees. CA G. Since the private respondent did not possess the appropriate civil service eligibility required of the position. Camorista 327 SCRA 84) Secretary Of Education. and Sports filed charges against several public school teachers for refusing to obey his return-to-work order. (See also Lapeña v. she was extended a temporary appointment only. CA G. PUBLIC OFFICERS I. Accordingly. The court decided in their favor. Almeida 324 SCRA 388 HELD: A case against a public officer should not be dismissed even if the complainant has withdrawn it. while 7 other members of the Court voted to grant the petition. and Farrales v. The petitioner was one of the employees who were offered a coterminous position. petitioner applied for a new opening in the company but was ignored. His act of applying for a new position cannot be construed against him. Culture and Sports v. 2000) FACTS: Petitioner had been a permanent employee of the DENR when it was reorganized under E. HELD: The SC held that petitioners were liable for their participation in the mass actions which actually amounted to a strike since they were involved in the concerted and unauthorized stoppage of work. Culture. the voting remained the same. There is absolutely no showing that the Board of Regents disapproved private respondent’s appointment. CA 326 SCRA 62 FACTS: Private respondent was first appointed as Technical Assistant. When petitioner became the President of MSU. Appointment Marohombsar v. Meanwhile. DENR failed to comply with this order. 2000) HELD: A public officer found guilty is not entitled to backwages.R. II. Section 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. NO.

the commission of fraud must be such that it prevented or suspended the holding of an election.R.R. Casting of Votes A.ELECTION LAW I. he attached a Certification which indicated that he was being nominated for the position of municipal mayor. the will of the electorate. NO. HELD: Alarilla’s failure to specify the public office he was seeking in his Certificate of Candidacy was not a fatal defect.R. Private respondent was proclaimed the winner. HELD: The SC ordered the conduct of a special election. 2000) FACTS: Petitioner and private respondent were candidates for Punong Barangay. He was later proclaimed as the mayor-elect. HELD: To warrant a declaration of failure of election. Failure of Election Banaga v. First. Alarilla was elected mayor. Third. Benito v. but he did not. NO. NO. COMELEC G. The Court held that the peculiar set of facts in the present case show not merely a failure of election but the absence of a valid electoral exercise. The election was declared a failure and a special one was scheduled. would be frustrated. the election failed and was reset. COMELEC G. or fatally affected the preparation and transmission. Second. However. Alarilla had rectified the deficiency by filing an Amended Certificate. 2000) FACTS: Alarilla filed his Certificate of Candidacy without indicating the position he was aspiring for. 2001) FACTS: Benito and private respondent Pagayawan were 2 of 8 candidates vying for the position of municipal mayor in Calanogas. COMELEC G. The election officer did not follow the procedure laid down by law for election postponement or suspension or the declaration of a failure of election. 139801 (May 31. as far as Alarilla is concerned. The place where the voting was conducted was illegal. Lanao del Sur during the May 11. As to the time of voting. The COMELEC dismissed the case declaring that the above grounds do not fall within the scope of failure of election. 134913 (Jan 19. However. Petitioner argues that the Certificate of Candidacy should be declared null and void for failing to specify the elective position that Alarilla was running for. the voting only started at 9PM because of the prevailing tension in the locality. Certificate Of Candidacy A. Again. The electorate was also not given ample notice of the exact schedule and venue of the election. B. there was a Certified List of Candidates listing Alarilla for the position of mayor. Petitioner filed a petition with the COMELEC to declare the election as a failure alleging that no election was conducted in the place and at the time prescribed by law. 5 33 . 1998 elections. the law provides that the casting of votes shall start at 7 in the morning and end at 3 in the afternoon. Deficiency Conquilla v. 2000) FACTS: Petitioner had filed a petition for declaration of failure of election on grounds of vote buying and glaring discrepancies in the election returns. there was an attached certification which stated that he was being nominated for the position of municipal mayor. B.R. custody and canvass of the election returns. Postponement of Election Basher v. 134696 (July 31. Finally. Disqualification II. If substantial compliance with the Election Law should give way to a mere technicality. COMELEC dismissed the petition. COMELEC G. These essential facts ought to have been alleged clearly by petitioner. 139028 (April 12. No.

Angeles G. The Court that takes jurisdiction first shall 34 .precincts clustered in the Sultan Disimban Elementary School were met with violence when some 30 armed men appeared at the school premises and fired shots into the air. 1. Metro Manila (later converted into a City) during the May 11. Jurisdiction to declare a failure of elections Carlos v. or that the great body of voters have been prevented by violence. there can be a failure of election in a political unit only if the will of the majority has been defiled and cannot be ascertained. The petitioner appealed to the COMELEC. causing them to scatter in different directions. The private respondent questioned the jurisdiction of the SC. Petitioner is only asking. or to arrive at any certain result whatsoever. The Board of Canvassers proclaimed petitioner as the mayor. The court then declared private respondent as the winner. Nevertheless. private respondent alleged that voting resumed when the armed men left around 1 pm in the afternoon. The private respondent filed an election protest with the RTC. Both parties are contending contrary facts. regardless of the actual number of ballots cast. 142907 (Nov. 3. And even if the votes from the three excluded precincts were added. However. Voting in all five precincts resumed after peace and order was re-established in the Disimban Elementary School." which it attributed to the present petitioner. This sowed panic among the voters and elections officials. a declaration of failure of elections on the first three precincts. HELD: Both the SC and COMELEC have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari. not with the entire five precincts. however. Petitioner then filed a petition to declare failure of election and to call a special election. After all. 1998 elections. There was no objection raised to the count of votes in the said two precincts during the counting of votes at the counting center. the trial court set aside the final tally of valid votes because of its finding of "significant badges of fraud. in its decision. COMELEC however denied the petition and affirmed the proclamation. The court came up with revision reports which also showed that the petitioner got the highest number of votes. prohibition. HELD: Petition Dismissed. 29. All the law requires is that a winning candidate must be elected by a plurality of valid votes. intimidation and threats from exercising their franchise. But if it can be determined. the ballots from the three precincts were excluded. violence or terrorism. private respondent still emerged as the winner. 5. it must be accorded respect. C. Petitioner alleged that the voting never resumed even after the lawless elements left.R. The cause of such failure may arise before or after the casting of votes or on the day of the election. there is no provision in our election laws which requires that a majority of registered voters must cast their votes. A spot report reported the incident. Whether there was a resumption of voting is essentially a question of fact. On the other hand. Two preconditions must exist before a failure of election may be declared: (1) no voting has been held in any precinct due to force majeure. and also filed a petition to the SC questioning the decision of the RTC. 2. Such are not proper subjects of inquiry in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. During the counting. No. Nevertheless. So why a selective objection to the three precincts herein? 4. Petitioner equates failure of elections to the low percentage of votes cast vis-à-vis the number of registered voters in the subject election precincts. The power to throw out or annul an election should be exercised with the utmost care and only under circumstances which demonstrate beyond doubt either that the disregard of the law had been so fundamental or so persistent and continuous that it is impossible to distinguish what votes are lawful and what are unlawful. 2000) FACTS: Petitioner and private respondent were candidates for the position of mayor of the municipality of Valenzuela. and mandamus over decisions of trial courts of general jurisdiction (RTCs) in election cases involving elective municipal officials. and (2) the votes not cast therein are sufficient to affect the results of the election. It happened before noon at the day of election. the winner was the private respondent.

Matter No. More importantly. and therefore. the same would not bar the present action as an exception to the rule because under the circumstances. (2) No.R. In such case. The power to nullify an election must be exercised with the greatest care with a view not to disenfranchise the voters. Counting of Votes Villarosa vs. Defects In Ballot Pacris v. HELD: Villarosa’s use of “JTV” as her nickname was a clever ploy to make a mockery of the election process. Pagalilawan Adm. The case was decided in favor of the private respondent. Columbres vs. when a ballot is found to be marked. HRET did not commit grave abuse of discretion in holding that the only issue for its determination was whether "JTV" votes or variations thereof should be counted in favor of VILLAROSA and in ruling that such votes are stray votes. “JTV” is the nickname of Villarosa’s husband. III. the court cannot declare a winner. HRET G. Counting Of Ballots A. If the appreciation of the Division is erroneous. should not invalidate the ballot. may be a proper subject of a motion for reconsideration. It is the COMELEC en banc that is vested with exclusive jurisdiction to declare a failure of election.exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the case. 143351. HELD: (1) No. Assuming that the trial court has jurisdiction to declare a failure of election. The result is a failure of election for that particular office. The Court declared that the voters must not be disenfranchised because of the failure of the election officials to perform their duties. 142038. Instead. and only under circumstances that clearly call for such drastic remedial measure. 2000) FACTS: This case involves the election protest filed by the private respondent against the petitioner who was declared as mayor. absent any evidence aliunde. What is being challenged is not the sufficiency of evidence but the appreciation thereof by the COMELEC Division. one of 35 . September 18. Relative to the appeal that petitioner filed with the COMELEC. the trial court has no jurisdiction to declare a failure of election. The case was remanded back to the COMELEC en banc. especially in matters of appreciation of ballots. Petitioner argues that the respondent invalidated several ballots cast in his favor due to undetached upper stubs. is absolute and cannot be the subject of a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc.R. there is the implication that such finding or ruling is contrary to law and thus. No. September 14. 2000 FACTS: Quintos contested the proclamation of Amelita Villarosa. 2000 Two issues: (1) Whether the findings of fact of the COMELEC Division. the legal presumption is that the sanctity of the ballot has been protected and preserved. appeal would not be a speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. RTJ-98-1403 (August 14. (2) Whether in appreciation of ballots. COMELEC G. There is no such presumption in law. who is the incumbent representative of Occidental Mindoro. HELD: The SC upheld the validity of the ballots. No. B. there is the presumption that the markings were placed by a third person. the extent of that power is limited to the annulment of the election and the calling of special elections. Issue: whether “JTV” votes should be counted in favor of Villarosa.

A canvass cannot be reflective of the true vote of the electorate unless all returns are considered and none is omitted. The petitioner now questions the disregarding of the 57 ballots cast in favor of petitioner which do not bear the signatures of the chairmen of the board of election inspectors. COMELEC suspended the effects and consequences of petitioner’s proclamation. when it can be shown that administrative bodies grossly misappreciated evidence of such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion.which involves the detachment of the upper stubs. HELD: In invalidating the 57 ballots. Also. Canvassing Immam v. This is true when the election returns missing or not counted will affect the results of the election. Private respondent was proclaimed as the duly elected Punong Barangay. However. Private respondent filed a case asking that the proclamation of the petitioner be declared void. 139468 (MAY 31. Rather. a ballot should not be invalidated because it was not signed at the back C. this Court has not hesitated to reverse their factual findings.R. Petitioner was proclaimed as a member.R. and declared the private respondent as the winner. considering that private respondent won by only 54 votes over petitioner. all votes indicated in these ballots must be counted in favor of the petitioner because the intent of the voters to vote for him is crystal. the petitioner was proclaimed as the mayor. Pre-Proclamation Cases A. Private respondent filed a petition to annul the proclamation presenting 36 . COMELEC 322 SCRA 866 FACTS: Petitioner and private respondent both ran for mayor. COMELEC G. Private respondent filed a petition with the COMELEC to count the ballots cast at the elections and for holding of special elections with prayer for issuance of a TRO &/or writ of preliminary injunction. the absence of the Chairmen's signature at the back of the ballot should not be a reason to invalidate the 57 ballots which are genuine.” The COMELEC has already promulgated a new set of rules which states that the failure to authenticate the ballots shall not invalidate them. the COMELEC relied on several laws which basically said that the signatures of the particular authorities are needed to validate the ballots. ranking 8th with 4 votes more that the private respondent. Kalookan City. 142507 ( December 1. 2000) FACTS: Petitioner and private respondent were both candidates for the position of Punong Barangay in Barangay 172. V. No. Effect of Failure to Authenticate Ballots Malabaguio v. the SC ruled that “It is correct to postulate that administrative findings of facts are accorded great respect. The petitioner filed an election protest case with the MTC. and even finality when supported by substantial evidence. the Board of Election Inspectors shall merely note such failure in the minutes and declare the failure to authenticate the ballots as an election offense. but was denied by the COMELEC en banc. COMELEC has jurisdiction to suspend oath-taking of proclaimed candidate on account of incomplete canvass of votes. Hence. NO. Private respondent filed a case with the COMELEC. While the petition was pending.” IV. COMELEC G. HELD: The effects of proclamation of only one candidate may be suspended where the validity of his election is still subject to determination. only the votes cast in 41 precincts were certified as counted. The 2nd Division set aside the MTC’s decision. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed. “Consequently. Hence this petition. Of the 55 precincts. The rendered a judgment declaring the petitioner as the winner. Nevertheless. Factual findings of administrative agencies are not infallible and will be set aside when they fail the test of arbitrariness. 2000) FACTS: Petitioner and private respondent were candidates for the position of member of the Sangguniang Bayan. Correction Of Manifest Errors Angelia v.

to effect the necessary corrections. NO. No. the utmost care being taken lest in penalizing the fraudulent and corrupt practices. 2000) 37 .R. Ocampo v. NO. innocent voters become disenfranchised. this is not sufficient to make the election returns statistically improbable. Gacott 322 SCRA 272 HELD: An election protest should not be dismissed despite a deficiency in the docket fee. 135613 (March 9. proclaim the winning candidate/s. Defective Returns 1. 139853 (September 5. COMELEC annulled the proclamation of petitioner. § 7 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. in the election returns and. after notice and hearing in accordance with Rule 27. Hence this petition. COMELEC en banc issued a resolution annulling the proclamation and declaring private respondent as the winner. VI. Duress Sebastian v. There was also a copy which showed a tally of only 13 votes for private respondent but indicated a corresponding total in words and figures of 18 votes. Election Contests A. Statistically Improbable Returns Velayo v. COMELEC. HELD: In accordance with the Court’s ruling in Castromayor v. Private respondent filed several cases with the COMELEC. the doctrine involves a question of fact and a more prudential approach prohibits its determination ex parte. Soller v. The doctrine on statistical improbability must be viewed restrictively. 139853 (September 5. COMELEC 327 SCRA 406 HELD: Duress cannot be raised as an issue in a pre-proclamation case. if any. the bare fact that a candidate for public office received zero votes in one or two precincts cannot adequately support a finding that the subject election returns are statistically improbable. the expedient action to take is to direct the Municipal Board of Canvassers to reconvene and. COMELEC G.R. Verification Soller v. 3. B. Moreover. COMELEC G. HELD: Standing alone and without more. on the basis thereof.copies of Election Returns which showed a tally of 92 votes for private respondent but indicated a corresponding total in words and figures of only 82 votes. Hence this petition. Petitioner was proclaimed as mayor. because it involves public interest. Formal Defects Ocampo v. COMELEC G. 2. COMELEC 325 SCRA 636 HELD: If only one candidate obtained all the votes in some precincts. 2000) HELD: An election protest should be dismissed if the correct docket fee is not paid. COMELEC 326 SCRA 636 HELD: Formal defects are not grounds for excluding an election return. Payment of Docket Fee Enojas v. These copies were supported by affidavits from a poll clerk and the chairperson of the Board of Election Inspectors. 2000) FACTS: Petitioner and private respondent were candidates for mayor.R. B.

E. Of the 5 cases which he had previously filed. COMELEC G. does not require that the petition contesting the election of a municipal official be accompanied by a certification or any statement against forum shopping. 2000) 38 . The protest included a verification stating that it was respondent who prepared the protest and. Private respondent filed an election protest with the RTC. Also. 2000) FACTS: Petitioner and private respondent were candidates for mayor. F. that he read and understood all its allegations. The SC held that the protest should be considered as an unsigned pleading because of the lack of the proper verification. No. HELD: The SC held that the summary dismissal of petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss was not a grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC. Motion For Reconsideration Columbres v. 2000) FACTS: Petitioner and private respondent were candidates for mayor. Certiorari Beso v. 138218 (March 17. The court ordered the Revision Committee to convene and start the revision of the ballots. NO. Petitioner orally moved for dismissal of the protest.R. appears to be part of a perfidious plot to prevent the early termination of the proceedings as evidenced by a confluence of events clearly showing a pattern of delay employed by petitioner to avert the revision ballots.R. 139397 (May 5. HELD: The SC declared the verification as insufficient because of the failure of respondent to state that the contents of the election protest are true. Petitioner filed a case with the COMELEC to annul the proclamation. Ampig G. The filing of the motion to dismiss. 139853 (September 5. anomalies and electoral frauds. the petitioner was illegally proclaimed as the winner. Barroso v. Motion To Dismiss Maruhom v. COMELEC G. Certificate Of Absence Of Forum Shopping Soller v. NO. HELD: Rules of Civil Procedure generally do not apply to election cases. the failure to comply with the nonforum shopping requirements does not automatically warrant the dismissal of the case with prejudice. 142038 (September 18. COMELEC G. Applying the Rules of Civil Procedure suppletorily. NO. Private respondent filed several cases against the petitioner with the COMELEC. correct and of his personal knowledge. but later withdrew it. Aballe 326 SCRA 100 HELD: The COMELEC has jurisdiction over a petition for certiorari in election contests pending in the inferior courts. He also filed an election protest with the RTC. Petitioner was proclaimed the winner.R. Election contests are subject to the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. C. in fact. Rule 35 which is applicable in this case. a motion to dismiss is not a prohibited pleading in an election contest filed before the regular courts. He also filed criminal complaints with the Law Department of the COMELEC. 2000) HELD: Election protest should contain certificate of non-forum shopping. Because of several irregularities. except by analogy or in a suppletory character. he only mentioned the 3 as pending. D.R. Petitioner alleges that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the petition.FACTS: This case involves an election protest filed by respondent against petitioner who was proclaimed as mayor. but it was denied.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration questioning the decision of the division to validate the marked ballots cast in favor of the respondent. which the latter reversed. and the Omnibus 39 . the Firearms Law. Petitioner issued a memorandum informing Barba that she would be reassigned. Petitioner filed a motion for execution pending appeal which was granted by the court. 2000) FACTS: Petitioner (judge) filed a complaint against private respondent (Sheriff IV in the same court as petitioner) for violation of the Civil Service Law. as amended. COMELEC G. HELD: Indeed. The latter was proclaimed as the winner. Only one ground was used by petitioner to support his petition i.M. Barba filed a complaint against petitioner for violation of § 261 (h) of the Omnibus Election Code. 131778 (January 28. NO. Hence this petition. 140179 (March 13. P-98-1284 (March 30. HELD: COMELEC did not err in reversing the decision. as such personnel movement could be used for electioneering or even to harass subordinates who are of different political persuasion. This transfer was made without prior approval of COMELEC. Procedure Laurel v. NO. G. However. Offenses 1. RTC Of Manila G. Election Offenses A. The order of COMELEC for the petitioner to relinquish his post to the private respondent pending final resolution of the appeal is a logical and necessary consequence of the denial of execution pending appeal. The MR was denied by the COMELEC en banc which declared that findings of fact cannot be a subject of an MR. When he ran for mayor. the petitioner was appointed as OIC-mayor.R. but the decision was reversed by the 2 nd Division of the COMELEC in an appeal filed by respondent. § 261 (h) of the Omnibus Election Code. prohibits the same unless approved by the COMELEC. The court ruled in favor of petitioner. Gebusion A. Petitioner filed an election protest. Hence this petition.FACTS: Petitioner filed an election protest against respondent who was proclaimed as mayor. which the SC considered as insufficient. HELD: Any question on the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the assailed ruling of a Division is also a proper subject for a motion for reconsideration.e. CA 325 SCRA 516 FACTS: Mayor Navarro appointed Barba as a nursing attendant. Private respondent appealed this decision to COMELEC. Transfer Of Government Employee Regalado v. NO. Jurisdiction Juan v. 2000) FACTS: Petitioner and private respondent were candidates for Punong Barangay. 2.R. “shortness of term”. during election period. The private respondent appealed this decision to the COMELEC. Carrying Firearm Caña v. People 322 SCRA 125 HELD: It is the RTC which has jurisdiction over election offenses. B. as the exigencies of public service require. Presiding Judge. The RTC decided in favor of petitioner. Petitioner was later charged and convicted of the offense. VII. Execution Pending Appeal Fermo v. 2000) C. appointing authorities can transfer or detail personnel.

2000) FACTS: On May 11. The case was elevated to SC. so that each of them would have three party-list reps. VIII. One hundred and twenty-three parties. Such move filled up the 52 seats allotted for the party-list reps. No. HELD: The SC ruled that respondent should be dismissed from service. As for the first party. HELD: 1. the COMELEC en banc proclaimed thirteen party-list representatives from twelve parties and organizations. meetings and consultations. Party-List System Veterans Federation Party v. and (2) impossibility. those garnering more than two percent of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes. in the exercise of its 40 .2001) Betito vs. No.2001) FACTS: Consolidated cases regarding the Right to Suffrage. 1998. Is the 20% allocation for party-list representatives mandatory or is it merely a ceiling? SC: The 20% allocation is only a ceiling and not mandatory. All those that garnered at least two percent of the total votes cast have an assured or guaranteed seat in the House of Representatives. Congress was vested with the broad power to define and prescribe the mechanics of the party-list system. 3.of votes of concerned party divided by no.R. In addition. On June 26. undoubtedly then. 2. One of the reasons is that by possessing a firearm without the necessary license. which had obtained at least two percent of the total number of votes cast for the party-list system. just take it at face value. ( 5% = 2 seats ) IX. The State. of additional seats allocated to the first party.of votes of first party multiplied by no. The formula for additional seats of other qualified parties is: no. the first election for the party-list scheme was held simultaneously with the national elections. Are the 2% threshold requirement and the three-seat limit provided in Section 11(b) of RA 7941 constitutional? SC: Yes. COMELEC G. After hearings. 1998. How then should the additional seats of a qualified party be determined? SC: As to the method of allocating additional seats. the first step is to rank all the participating parties according to the votes they each obtained. 147179 (March 26. he committed a serious misconduct. organizations and coalitions participated.R. Hence. COMELEC G. Right of Suffrage . As to the procedural limitation. The percentage of their respective votes as against the total number of votes cast for the party-list system is then determined. the proclaimed parties asked the SC to annul the COMELEC action and instead to proclaim additional seats. COMELEC ordered the proclamation of the 38 parties. 147066 (March 26. respondent was also accused of carrying a revolver without a license and of threatening to kill complainant for having filed the above charges. Petitioners are asking the COMELEC to hold a special registration before the May 14. The act of registration is an indispensable precondition to the right of suffrage. No. HELD: 1. The right of suffrage is not at all absolute. An investigation was conducted. Benipayo G. pleading for their own proclamations. 1136781 (October 6.Election Code. It is subject to existing substantive and procedural requirements. the right of a citizen to vote is necessarily conditioned upon the process of registration.R. Aggrieved. 2001 General Election.Special Registration before the General Elections Akbayan vs. Thirty-eight defeated parties and organizations promptly filed suit in the COMELEC. Thereafter. and the respondent was found guilty of several of the charges. the COMELEC denied the request for special registration on the grounds (1) it is against the law.

HELD: The SC dismissed the case for prematurity. Eastern Samar during the May 11. 8436 [which provides that if the COMELEC cannot observe the periods and dates prescribed by law for certain pre-election acts. Private respondent filed an election protest with the COMELEC. implementation and application of a law would be accorded great weight considering that these specialized government bodies are.A. Y. There is no obligation to do an impossible thing. under prevailing circumstances. COMELEC has stressed that there is an operational impossibility in conducting the special registration such as the additional printing of the official ballots. The petitioner filed this case to annul the order for the promulgation of the resolution and to direct the First Division to deliberate anew on the case. On 2/24/00. The law does not require that the impossible be done. It merely exercised a prerogative that chiefly pertains to it and one which squarely falls within the proper sphere of its constitutionally –mandated powers. Sec 28 relies on the sound premise that these certain pre-election acts are still capable of being reasonably performed vis-à-vis the remaining period before the date of election and the conduct of other related pre-election activities required under the law. 41 . The First Division later declared that the parties should ignore the resolution since it was not yet promulgated. The Division later set a date for promulgation of a resolution of the case. Commissioner X prepared and signed a proposed resolution in the case. R. It will then open the registration process to abuse. and Z. and said that the aggrieved party could then challenge it through a Motion for Reconsideration before the Commission en banc or through a certiorari case before the SC. Commissioner Y dissented. It ruled that it has no power to review via certiorari. 2. if a special registration is conducted on a later date. 6. whose final decision is what is reviewable via certiorari before the Supreme Court. acted within the bounds and confines of the applicable law on the matter. In truth. “The instant case does not fall under any of the recognized exceptions to the rule in certiorari cases dispensing with a motion for reconsideration prior to the filing of a petition. Stated otherwise. COMELEC G. election returns and other forms and paraphernalia.R. it can fix another period]. Powers of the COMELEC Ambil v. If not. the period for filing petitions for exclusion must likewise be adjusted to a later date. petitioner and respondent received a purported resolution in favor of private respondent promulgated on 2/14/00 and signed by Commissioners X. Commissioner X retired and was replaced. It is meant to complement the prohibitive period for filing petitions for exclusion of voters from the list. COMELEC. X. in denying the request of petitioners to hold a special registration. by their nature and functions. may then enact laws to safeguard and regulate the act of voter’s registration. Undergoing the long process of preparing for the elections would result in the postponement of the elections to June 10. 5. 4.inherent police power. The period barring any registration before the general elections has its purpose. under Sec 28. while Commissioner Z wanted to see both positions first before giving her decision. the exceptions do not apply to election cases where a motion for reconsideration is mandatory by Constitutional fiat to elevate the case to the Comelec en banc. an interlocutory order or even a final resolution of a Division of the Commission on Elections. then there can be no challenge to the voter’s list. 143398 (October 25. Petitioners cannot also rely on the standby or residual powers of the COMELEC. On 2/15/00. 3. 1998 elections. 2000) FACTS: Petitioner and private respondent were candidates for the position of Governor. No. The Provincial Board of Canvassers proclaimed petitioner as the duly elected Governor. in the best position to know what they can possibly do or not do. It is an accepted doctrine in administrative law that the determination of administrative agency as to the operation. which was assigned to the First Division.

Makalintal G.R. 05. falls within the division of the COMELEC and not on the COMELEC en banc. The COMELEC dismissed the pre-proclamation case filed by private respondent. the authority to resolve petition for certiorari involving incidental issues of election protest. Batangas. Soller v. Resolution No. 2000) FACTS: The petitioners filed with the RTC a class suit against the Sangguniang Panglalawigan of Batangas. Later. Calaca.R. such act is subject to scrutiny by the Regional Trial Court. Sangguniang Pambayan of Calaca. Petitioner then filed with the COMELEC a petition for certiorari contending that respondent RTC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing private respondent's election protest. The COMELEC en banc dismissed petitioner's suit. The petitioners contend that when the COMELEC exercises its quasi-judicial functions under Section 52 of the Omnibus Election Code. 1998 elections. HELD: The SC has ruled in previous cases that the COMELEC. 1998. the 1st Division even later said that the parties should ignore the resolution since it was not yet promulgated. 345. Ordinance No. Petitioner now questions this decision of the COMELEC en banc. 132603 (September 18. Private respondent filed a petition with the COMELEC to annul the proclamation. 05 and Resolution No. 2000) FACTS: Petitioner and private respondent (Saulong) were both candidates for mayor of the municipality of Bansud. 05 declared the abolition of Barangay San Rafael and its merger with Barangay Dacanlao. Lastly. sitting en banc. while the RTC denied petitioner's motion to dismiss. This power pertains to the divisions of the Commission. as it was not shown that the essential requirements regarding the attestations or certifications of several government agencies were obtained. 345 both enacted by the Sangguniang Panglalawigan of Batangas. thereby overriding the veto exercised by the governor of Batangas. 05 and Resolution No. providing for the rules and regulations governing the conduct of the required plebiscite scheduled on February 28. The petitioner was proclaimed as mayor by the municipal board of canvassers.The SC declared the resolution signed by Commissioner X as void for various reasons. Petitioners submit that the conduct of a plebiscite. The trial court denied the petition saying that any petition or action questioning an act. pursuant to Ordinance No. COMELEC G. In the SC’s view. Commissioner Z could not have affixed her signature on the resolution. but when the COMELEC performs a purely ministerial duty. its acts are subject to the exclusive review by this Court. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but said motion was denied. Ordinance No. 2987. and COMELEC Resolution No. Oriental Mindoro in the May 11. 345 affirmed the effectivity of Ordinance No. Batangas and accordingly instructed the COMELEC to conduct the required plebiscite. like the questioned order of the trial court. Batangas. one who is no longer a member of the Commission at the time the final decision or resolution is promulgated cannot validly take part in that resolution or decision. NO. and the COMELEC for annulment of Ordinance No. 05 was vetoed by the governor of Batangas for being ultra vires. does not have the requisite authority to hear and decide election cases including pre-proclamation controversies in the first instance. NO. 2987. 42 . Third. municipality of Calaca. Second. particularly. First. resolution or decision of the COMELEC must be brought before the Supreme Court. to decide the issue of the abolition of barangay San Rafael and its merger with barangay Dacanlao. since on the same date an order was issued where she said that she still wanted to see both positions before making her decision. 139853 (September 5. Any decision by the Commission en banc as regards election cases decided by it in the first instance is null and void. The COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. the Clerk of the 1st Division denied the release or promulgation of the resolution on 2/14/00 resolution. is not adjudicatory or quasi-judicial in nature but simply ministerial or administrative in nature and only in obedience to the aforesaid Ordinance and Resolution. Salva v. private respondent filed an election protest against petitioner with the RTC.

B. A perusal of the said Resolution reveals that the person subject of the recall process is a specific elective official in relation to her specific office. Extradition is a proceeding sui generis. The Secetary of Justice denied that request. 1 for the recall of Vice-Mayor Amelita Navarro. was not issued pursuant to the COMELECs quasi-judicial functions but merely as an incident of its inherent administrative functions over the conduct of plebiscites. Conflicts between international law and Philippine law 43 . the evaluation process is akin to an administrative agency conducting an investigative proceeding. COMELEC Resolution No.R. His guilt or innocence will be adjudged in the court of the state where he will be extradited.HELD: The SC ruled that “…What is contemplated by the term final orders. Extradition Secretary of Justice v. the said resolution may not be deemed as a final order reviewable by certiorari by this Court. the prospective extraditee may be provisionally arrested pending the submission of the request. Assuming that the extradition treaty does not allow for such rights. 2000) FACTS: The Preparatory Recall Assembly passed Resolution No. Recall Election Afiado vs. Thus. Hon. 2987 which provides for the rules and regulations governing the conduct of the required plebiscite. 139465. The issue is whether an elective official who became City Mayor by legal succession can be the subject of a recall election by virtue of a Preparatory Recall Assembly Resolution that was passed when said elective official was still the Vice-Mayor. Lantion and Mark Jimenez G. the basic due process rights of notice and hearing are indispensable. Dissent (original decision): Under the extradition treaty. thus. It is not a criminal proceeding which will call into operation all the rights of an accused guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. the Constitutional right to procedural due process must override treaty obligations. 2000 overturning 322 SCRA 160 (Jan. PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW A. Because of this possible consequence. HELD: The assumption by legal succession of the petitioner as the new Mayor of Santiago City is a supervening event that rendered the recall proceeding against her moot and academic. the US requested for the extradition of Mark Jimenez for violations of US tax and election laws. No. the Constitution must prevail. 18. Briefly. is private respondent entitled to the two basic due process rights of notice and hearing? HELD: Private respondent is bereft of the right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process. 2000) By virtue of an extradition treaty between the US and the Philippines. No. October 17. Any question pertaining to the validity of said resolution may be well taken in an ordinary civil action before the trial courts. 141787 (September 18. When there is a conflict between international law obligations and the Constitution.R. ISSUE: During the evaluation stage of the extradition proceedings. The process of extradition does not involve the determination of the guilt or innocence of an accused. Pending evaluation of the extradition documents by the Philippine government. XI. and partakes of the nature of a criminal investigation. COMELEC G. rulings and decisions of the COMELEC reviewable by certiorari by the Supreme Court as provided by law are those rendered in actions or proceedings before the COMELEC and taken cognizance of by the said body in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. Jimenez requested for copies of the US' extradition request.

D. may invalidate a treaty inconsistent with it. Thus. 2000) International School (IS) pays its teachers who are hired from abroad. compromis d' arbitrage. through its Constitution. and seond by the Constitution's doctrine of incorporation. and a later statute may repeal an existing treaty. As long as the VFA possesses the elements of an agreement under international law. fairness and justice. 2. declaration. 2000 It is inconsequential whether the United States treats the VFA only as an executive agreement because. but some are American). Hon. agreement. likewise proscribes discrimination. whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments. or creed. is "an international instrument concluded between States in written form and governed by international law. exchange of notes. the Constitution directs the State to promote "equality of employment opportunities for all. The Philippines. as defined by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It justifies this under the 'dislocation factor' – that foreigners must be given a higher salary both to attract them to teach here. A treaty. In the case of a conflict between a treaty and a statute. concordat. from Hugo Grotius onward. and political inequalitites. The Teacher's Union cries discrimination. economic. first. reduce social.Secretary of Justice v. and to compensate them for the "significant economic disadvantages" involved in coming here. as the Supreme law of the Land.R. 1 of the Constitution (Social Justice and Human Rights) exhorts Congress to give the highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and ennhance the right od all people to human dignity. No. 18. has incorporated this principle as part of its national laws. Equal protection under the Constitution and international law International School Alliance of Educators v. Article 2(2) of the 44 . Executive Agreements Bayan v. as the Constitution provides that the generally accepted principles of international law form "part of the law of the land. under international law. race." Under the doctrine of incorporation. some of which are: act. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and numerous other international Conventions all embody the general principle against discrimination. Lastly. a treaty obligation has the force and effect of a statute. pact. All writers. Quisumbing and International School G. whether the latter are Filipino or not (most are Filipino. convention. No. as it does in case of an unconstitutional statute. and is given equal treatment with the latter. protocol. General principles of law include principles of equity. Lantion and Mark Jimenez 322 SCRA 160 (Jan. the very antithesis of fairness and justice." It would be an affront to both the spirit and the letter of these provisions if the State closes its eyes to unequal and discriminatory terms and conditions of employment. rules of international law form part of the law of the land and no further legislative action id needed to make such rules applicable in the domestic sphere. as it rests on fundamental norms of justice 1. Oct. an executive agreement is as binding as a treaty. C. a higher salary than its local-hires. or foreign-hires." The Constitution also provides that labor is entitled to "humane conditions of work. based on the test of what is reasonable. 138570. 128845 (June 1. charter and modus vivendi. which springs from general principles of law.e. Treaties vs. Art. statute. Equal pay for equal work is a principal long honored in this jurisdiction. the said agreement is to be taken equally as a treaty. These conditions are not restricted to the physical workplace. International law. Sec. the principle of lex posterior derogat priori applies—a treaty may repeal a prior statute." There are many other terms used for a treaty or international agreement. XIII. The Constitution. the principle of pacta sunt servanda (the obligation to keep their agreement in good faith). 2000) The observance of our country's duties under a treaty is compelled by." "…regardless of sex. i. Zamora G.R.".. HELD: Discrimination exists. have pointed out that the names or titles of international agreements included under the general term treaty have little or no legal significance. but include as well the manner by which employers treat their employees. and whatever its particular designation. 10.

Vienna Convention provides that "the provisions of paragraph 1 regarding the use of terms in the present Convention are without prejudice to the use of those terms. . in international law.” 45 . patent rights. there is no difference between treaties and executive agreements in their binding effect upon states concerned. as long as the negotiating functionaries have remained within their powers. From the earliest days of our history we have entered into executive agreements covering such subjects as commercial and consular relations. . trademark and copyright protection. the right of the Executive to enter into binding agreements without the necessity of subsequent Congressional approval has been confirmed by long usage. postal and navigation arrangements and the settlement of claims. In our jurisdiction." Thus. In Commissioner of Customs vs. most-favored-nation rights. we have recognized the binding effect of executive agreements even without the concurrence of the Senate or Congress. or to the meanings which may be given to them in the internal law of the State. we said:". Eastern Sea Trading. The validity of these has never been seriously questioned by our courts. International law continues to make no distinction between treaties and executive agreements: they are equally binding obligations upon nations.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful