Consolidated Cases for Political Law Review Mid-term Exam

8/12/2019 Consolidated Cases for Political Law Review Mid-term Exam

1/96

Consolidated Cases for Political Law Review Mid-term Exam

ATONG PAGLAUM V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS - LIAO

Facts:

52 party-list groups and organizations filed separate petitions totaling 5 wit! t!e "upreme Court #"C$ in

an effort to reverse various resolutions %y t!e Commission on Elections #Comelec$ dis&ualifying t!em

from t!e May 2'() party-list race* +!e Comelec, in its assailed resolutions issued in cto%er, .ovem%er

and /ecem%er of 2'(2, ruled, among ot!ers, t!at t!ese party-list groups and organizations failed to

represent a 0marginalized and underrepresented sector,1 t!eir nominees do not come from a

0marginalized and underrepresented sector,1 andor some of t!e organizations or groups are not truly

representative of t!e sector t!ey intend to represent in Congress*

Petitioners argued t!at t!e poll %ody committed grave a%use of discretion in denying some of t!e

petitioners3 application for accreditation and cancelling t!e existing accreditation of t!e rest* +!ey also

lamented t!e poll %ody3s 0denial1 to accord t!em due process in t!e evaluation proceedings*

Issue4 !et!er or not t!e said party-list groups were validly dis&ualified

Held4

+!e 5 petitions were remanded t!ese petitions to t!e Comelec* +!e party-list groups and organizations

covered %y t!e ( petitions t!at o%tained mandatory in6unction orders from t!e !ig! court still stand a

c!ance to ma7e it to t!e 2'() party-list race as t!e !ig! court ordered t!e poll %ody to determine 0w!et!er

petitioners are &ualified to register under t!e party-list system and to participate in t!e () May 2'() party-

list elections1 under t!e new parameters set fort! in t!e /ecision* +!e rest, meaning, t!e () ot!er

petitions, were remanded to t!e poll %ody merely for purposes of determining w!et!er t!ey may %e

granted accreditation under t!e new parameters %ut may not participate in t!e May 2'() elections*

+!e /ecision, !owever, clarified that the poll body may not be faulted for acting on the basis of

previous rulings (Ang Bagong Bayani, BANAT of the high court regarding the party!list system"

These earlier rulings enumerated guidelines on #ho may participate in the party!list system"

+!ere are t!ree groups t!at may participate in t!e party-list system4

#($ national parties or organizations,

#2$ regional parties or organizations, and

#)$ sectoral parties or organizations*

n t!e part of national parties or organi$ations and regional parties or organi$ationsw!ic! intend toparticipate in t!e party-list race, t!e new guidelines state t!at t!ese parties 0do not need to organi$e

along sectoral lines and do not need to represent any %marginali$ed or underrepresented sector"&'

8s for political parties, they may participate in the party!list race by registering under the party!list

system and no longer field congressional candidates" +!ese parties, if t!ey field congressional

candidates, !owever, are not %arred from participating in t!e party-list elections9 w!at t!ey need to do is

register t!eir sectoral wing or party under t!e party-list system* +!is sectoral wing s!all %e considered an

0independent sectoral party1 lin7ed to a political party t!roug! a coalition*


2/96

+!e &uestion is4 #here does representation of marginali$ed and underrepresented' sectors come

in) The ans#er: on the sectoral parties or organi$ations that intend to participate in the party!list

system"

+!e !ig! court !eld t!at purely sectoral parties or organi$ations may either represent marginali$ed

and underrepresented' constituencies or those lac*ing #ell!defined political constituencies"'

+!e !ig! court went on to enumerate 0marginali$ed and underrepresented' sectors, as follo#s:labor, peasant, fisherfol*, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans,

and overseas #or*ers" The sectors that lac* #ell!defined political constituencies' include

professionals, the elderly, #omen, and the youth"

+!e rule on nominees and mem%ers coming from t!e sector t!ey intend to represent also applies only to

t!e sectoral parties or organizations* +!e !ig! court ruled t!at it is enoug! t!at 0:a; ma6ority of t!e

mem%ers of t!e sectoral parties or organizations< must %elong to t!e =marginalized and

underrepresented sector t!ey represent*31 +!e same is true for t!ose w!o lac7 0well-defined political

constituencies*1

8s for t!e nominees of t!ese sectoral parties and organizations, t!e new guidelines provide t!at t!ey

must eit!er %e mem%ers of t!e sector or !ave a trac7 record of advocacy for t!eir sector*

"!ould some of t!e nominees of t!ese national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations %e

dis&ualified, t!e party or organization itself will not %e dis&ualified 0provided t!at t!ey !ave at least one

nominee w!o remains &ualified*1

+!e party-list system, according to t!e /ecision

>uoting C!ristian Monsod, t!e main proponent of t!e party-list system, t!e !ig! court stated t!at it is

not synonymous #ith that of the sectoral representation"1 +!e !ig! court stressed t!at t!e framers

of t!e (?@A Constitution did not intend to leave out 0non-sectoral parties1 in t!e party-list system and

exclusively limit it to sectoral groups*

0+!e framers intended t!e sectoral parties to constitute a part, %ut not t!e entirety, of t!e party-list

system< Bn fact, t!e framers voted down , (?-22, a proposal to reserve t!e party-list system exclusively

to sectoral parties*

0+!ere can %e no dou%t w!atsoever t!at t!e framers of t!e (?@A Constitution expressly re6ected t!e

proposal to ma7e t!e party-list system exclusively for sectoral parties only, and t!at t!ey clearly intended

t!e party-list system to include %ot! sectoral and non-sectoral parties,1 t!e /ecision read*

+o amplify its position, t!e !ig! court pointed out "ec* 5#($, 8rt* B of t!e (?@A Constitution, w!ic! states4

"ection 5* #($ +!e Douse of Representatives s!all %e composed of not more t!an two !undred and fifty

mem%ers, unless ot!erwise fixed %y law, w!o s!all %e elected from legislative districts apportioned among

t!e provinces, cities, and t!e Metropolitan Manila area in accordance wit! t!e num%er of t!eir respectivein!a%itants, and on t!e %asis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and t!ose w!o, as provided %y law, s!all

%e elected t!roug! a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or

organizations*

D8+ B" +DE +--F THAT TH. +AT/ 0I1T 1/1T.2 I1 N-T .34051I6.0/ F- 1.4T-A0

+ATI.1)


3/96

"EC+B. 5#2$, 8R+BCLE B +DE (?@A C."+B+F+B. DBCD M8./8+E" +D8+, /FRB.G +DE

BR"+ +DREE C."ECF+BE +ERM" C.GRE"" 8+ER +DE R8+BBC8+B. +DE (?@A

C."+B+F+B., 0.E-D8L +DE "E8+" 8LLC8+E/ + P8R+H-LB"+ REPRE"E.+8+BE"

"D8LL IE BLLE/, 8" PRB/E/ IH L8, IH "ELEC+B. R ELEC+B. RM +DE L8IR,

PE8"8.+, FRI8. PR, B./BGE.F" CFL+FR8L CMMF.B+BE", ME., HF+D, 8./ "FCD

+DER "EC+R" 8" M8H IE PRB/E/ IH L8, EJCEP+ +DE RELBGBF" "EC+R*1

Moreover, "ection 5#2$, 8rticle B of t!e (?@A Constitution mandates t!at, during t!e first t!ree

consecutive terms of Congress after t!e ratification of t!e (?@A Constitution, 0one-!alf of t!e seats

allocated to party-list representatives s!all %e filled, as provided %y law, %y selection or election from t!e

la%or, peasant, ur%an poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, yout!, and suc! ot!er sectors as

may %e provided %y law, except t!e religious sector*1 +!is provision clearly s!ows again t!at t!e party-list

system is not exclusively for sectoral parties for two o%vious reasons*

irst, t!e ot!er one-!alf of t!e seats allocated to party-list representatives would naturally %e open to

non-sectoral party-list representatives, clearly negating t!e idea t!at t!e party-list system is exclusively for

sectoral parties representing t!e 0marginalized and underrepresented*1 "econd, t!e reservation of one-!alf of t!e party-list seats to sectoral parties applies only for t!e first 0t!ree consecutive terms after t!e

ratification of t!is Constitution,1 clearly ma7ing t!e party-list system fully open after t!e end of t!e first

t!ree congressional terms* +!is means t!at, after t!is period, t!ere will %e no seats reserved for any class

or type of party t!at &ualifies under t!e t!ree groups constituting t!e party-list system*

Dence, the clear intent, e7press #ording, and party!list structure ordained in 1ection 8(9 and (,

Article 6I of the 9;9, also 7nown as t!e

+arty!list 1ystem Act, specifically from "ec* ) #/efinition of +erms$4

#%$ 8 party means eit!er a political party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties

#c$ 8 political party refers to an organi$ed group of citi$ens advocating an ideology or platform,

principles and policies for the general conduct of government and w!ic!, as t!e most immediate

means of securing t!eir adoption, regularly nominates and supports certain of its leaders and mem%ers as

candidates for pu%lic office

#d$ 8 sectoral party refers to an organi$ed group of citi$ens belonging to any of the sectors

enumerated in 1ection 8 hereof #hose principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and

concerns of their sector

8gain, t!e !ig! court noted t!at defining t!ese parties or groups, one from t!e ot!ers, could only mean

t!at t!ey are not one and t!e same*

+revious rulings reversed by Atong +aglaum

8s earlier stated, t!ere are previous rulings on t!e party-list system in t!e case of 8ng Iagong Iayani v*

Comelec and I8.8+ v* Comelec


4/96

CHAVEZ VS. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL - MONSANTO

Facts:

4have$ ?uestioned the then composition of the @B4 * Fnder t!e Constitution, t!ere s!all only %e =

mem%ers, one of #hom is a member from the 4ongress * +!e t!en KIC !as 2 mem%ers from t!e

Congress Rep* +upaz from t!e Douse and "en* Escudero from t!e "enate, resulting to an @-mem%er

KIC* C!avez argued t!at its composition clearly violates an express provision of t!e Constitution*

Constitutional Law; Supreme Court; Jurisdiction; Declaratory Relief;

.otwit!standing t!e fact t!at only &uestions of law are raised in t!e petition, an action for declaratory

relief is not among t!ose wit!in t!e original 6urisdiction of t!e "upreme Court as provided in "ection 5,

8rticle BBB of t!e Constitution*+!e Constitution as t!e su%6ect matter, and t!e validity and construction

of "ection @ #($, 8rticle BBB as t!e issue raised, t!e petition s!ould properly %e considered as t!at w!ic!

would result in t!e ad6udication of rig!ts sans t!e execution process %ecause t!e only relief to %e granted

is t!e very declaration of t!e rig!ts under t!e document soug!t to %e construed* Bt %eing so, t!e original

6urisdiction over t!e petition lies wit! t!e appropriate R+C* .otwit!standing t!e fact t!at only &uestions of

law are raised in t!e petition, an action for declaratory relief is not among t!ose wit!in t!e original

6urisdiction of t!is Court as provided in "ection 5, 8rticle BBB of t!e Constitution*

Same; Same; Judicial Review; Limitations on the Supreme Courts Power of Judicial Review.

+!e Courts3 power of 6udicial review, li7e almost all ot!er powers conferred %y t!e Constitution, is su%6ect

to several limitations, namely4 #($ t!ere must %e an actual case or controversy calling for t!e exercise of

6udicial power9 #2$ t!e person c!allenging t!e act must !ave 0standing1 to c!allenge9 !e must !ave a

personal and su%stantial interest in t!e case, suc! t!at !e !as sustained or will sustain, direct in6ury as a

result of its enforcement9 #)$ t!e &uestion of constitutionality must %e raised at t!e earliest possi%le

opportunity9 and #$ t!e issue of constitutionality must %e t!e very lis motaof t!e case* Generally, a party

will %e allowed to litigate only w!en t!ese conditions sine &ua nonare present, especially w!en t!e

constitutionality of an act %y a co-e&ual %ranc! of government is put in issue*

Same; Judicial and ar Council !JC";

+!e claim t!at t!e composition of t!e Kudicial and Iar Council #KIC$ is illegal and unconstitutional is an

o%6ect of concern, not 6ust for a nominee to a 6udicial post, %ut for all citizens w!o !ave t!e rig!t to see7

6udicial intervention for rectification of legal %lunders*8 vast num%er of aspirants to 6udicial posts all over

t!e country may %e affected %y t!e Court3s ruling* More importantly, t!e legality of t!e very process of

nominations to t!e positions in t!e Kudiciary is t!e nucleus of t!e controversy* +!e Court considers t!is a

constitutional issue t!at must %e passed upon, lest a constitutional process %e plagued %y misgivings,

dou%ts and worse, mistrust* Dence, a citizen !as a rig!t to %ring t!is &uestion to t!e Court, clot!ed wit!

legal standing and at t!e same time, armed wit! issues of transcendental importance to society*

Same; Statutory Construction;

Bt is a well-settled principle of constitutional construction t!at t!e language employed in t!e Constitution

must %e given t!eir ordinary meaning except w!ere tec!nical terms are employed


5/96

Constitutional Law; Judicial and ar Council;

/ou%tless, the Framers of our 4onstitution intended to create a @udicial and Bar 4ouncil (@B4 as

an innovative solution in response to the public clamor in favor of eliminating politics in the

appointment of members of the @udiciary*

+!erefore, to allow t!e Legislature to !ave more &uantitative influence in t!e KIC %y !aving more t!anone voice spea7, w!et!er wit! one full vote or one-!alf #(2$ a vote eac!, would, as one former

congressman and mem%er of t!e KIC put it, 0negate the principle of e?uality among the three

branches of government #hich is enshrined in the 4onstitution"'

Same; Doctrine of #perative $acts; %n the interest of fair play under the doctrine of operative

facts& actions previous to the declaration of unconstitutionality are le'ally reco'ni(ed.

In the interest of fair play under the doctrine of operative facts, actions previous to the declaration

of unconstitutionality are legally recogni$ed" They are not nullified"

LAYUG VS. COMELEC ANGUB

Facts:

n Marc! )(, 2'(', petitioner 0ayug, in his capacity as a ta7payer and concerned citi$en, filed pro

se a +etition to is?ualifyBuhay +arty!0ist from participating in the 2ay 9, 9 elections, and

Brother 2i*e from being its nominee * De argued t!at Iu!ay Party-List is a mere Nextension of t!e El

"!addai,N w!ic! is a religious sect* 8s suc!, it is dis&ualified from %eing a party-list under "ection 5,

Paragrap! 2, 8rticle B of t!e (?@A Constitution, as well as "ection O, Paragrap! ( of Repu%lic 8ct #R*8*$

.o* A?(, ot!erwise 7nown as t!e NParty-List "ystem 8ct*N .eit!er does Irot!er Mi7e, w!o is allegedly a

%illionaire real estate %usinessman and t!e spiritual leader of El "!addai, &ualify as None w!o %elongs to

t!e marginalized and underrepresented sector xxxN, as re&uired of party-list nominees under "ection O #A$

of CMELEC Resolution .o* @@'A, t!e NRules on /is&ualification Cases 8gainst .ominees of Party-List

Groupsrganizations Participating in t!e May (', 2'(' 8utomated .ational and Local Elections*N

Bn t!eir 8nswer, Iu!ay Party-List and Irot!er Mi7e claimed t!at Iu!ay Party-List is not a religious sect

%ut a political party possessing all t!e &ualifications of a party-list* Bt is composed of groups for t!e elderly,

t!e women, t!e yout!, t!e !andicapped, as well as t!e professionals, and Irot!er Mi7e %elongs to t!e

marginalized and underrepresented elderly group* +!ey li7ewise argued t!at nominees from a political

party suc! as Iu!ay Party-List need not even come from t!e marginalized and underrepresented sector*

Record s!ows t!at Layug received a copy of t!e aforesaid 8nswer only at t!e !earing conducted on 8pril

2', 2'(' after !is lawyer, 8tty* Rustico I* Gagate, manifested t!at !is client !as not received t!e same*

Counsel for private respondents explained t!at t!eir liaison officer found Layugs given address QA' /r*

Pilapil "t*, Iarangay "an Miguel, Pasig City to %e inexistent* +o t!is, 8tty* Gagate was said to !ave

retorted as follows4 N+!e good counsel for t!e respondent could send any 8nswer or processes orpleadings to my #sic$ address at Iam%ang, .ueva izcaya Hour Donor, t!ey could come over all t!e way

to .ueva izcaya, we will entertain !im*N

+!e CMELEC 2nd /ivision issued a Resolution denying t!e petition for lac7 of su%stantial evidence* 8

copy t!ereof was sent to Layug via registered mail at QA' /r* Pilapil "treet, Iarangay "an Miguel, Pasig

City* Dowever, t!e mail was returned unserved wit! t!e following notation of t!e postmaster4 N(st O2)('

un7nown9 2nd O25(' un7nown9 and )rd attempt O2@(' R+" B."FBCBE.+ 8//RE""*N

"u%se&uently, in its rder dated Kuly 2O, 2'(', t!e CMELEC "econd /ivision found Layug to %e a


6/96

Np!antom petitionerN %y Nseeing to it t!at pleadings, orders and 6udicial notices addressed to !im are not

received %y !im %ecause t!e address !e gave and maintains is fictitiousN* 8ccordingly, Layug was

deemed to !ave received on Kune 2), 2'(' a copy of t!e Resolution dated Kune (5, 2'(' and, t!ere

%eing no motion for reconsideration filed wit!in t!e reglementary period, said Resolution was declared

final and executory* Bt was entered in t!e Ioo7 of Entries of Kudgment on Kuly 2@, 2'('*

8s a conse&uence of suc! entry, t!e 4-2.0.4 .n Banc, sitting as the National Board of4anvassers for +arty!0ist, promulgated on @uly C, 9 NB4 esolution No" 9!C> proclaiming

Buhay +arty!0ist as a #inner entitled to t#o ( seats in the House of epresentatives * Ieing t!e

fift! nominee, ho#ever, Brother 2i*e #as not proclaimed as the representative of Buhay +arty!0ist"

Meanw!ile, on Kuly 2@, 2'(', Layug moved for reconsideration of t!e Resolution dated Kune (5, 2'('

%efore t!e CMELEC En Ianc claiming denial of due process for failure of t!e CMELEC to serve !im,

!is representatives or counsels a copy of said Resolution* De alleged t!at it was only on Kuly 2O, 2'(',

after learning a%out it in t!e newspapers, t!at !e personally secured a copy of t!e Resolution from t!e

CMELEC* Dis motion for reconsideration, !owever, was denied %y t!e CMELEC "econd /ivision in its

rder dated 8ugust , 2'(' for %eing filed out of time*

Issues:

8ggrieved, Layug filed t!is petition imputing grave a%use of discretion on t!e part of t!e CMELEC for

t!e following acts and omissions4

(* +DE CMELEC "EC./ /BB"B. /B/ .+ B""FE 8 .+BCE PRMFLG8+B. + +DE

PE+B+B.ER3" CF."EL 8" RE>FBRE/ IH RFLE () +DE RFLE" CFR+, +DEREIH

CMMB++B.G 8 CLE8R BL8+B. PRCE/FR8L /FE PRCE""*

2* IH B""FB.G +DE )' KFLH 2'(' RE"LF+B., +DE CMELEC E. I8.C F.L8FLLH

.EGLEC+E/ +DE PERRM8.CE 8. 8C+ DBCD +DE L8 "PECBBC8LLH E.KB." 8" 8

/F+H RE"FL+B.G RM B+" BCE, DBCD B" + DE8R 8./ /ECB/E +DE PE+B+B.ER3"

M+B. R REC."B/ER8+B. DBCD 8" +BMELH BLE/*

Bn t!eir respective Comments to t!e petition, respondents assail the Durisdiction of the 4ourt arguing

that, #ith the proclamation of Buhay +arty!0ist on @uly C, 9 and the assumption into office of

its representatives, Mariano Mic!ael /M* elarde, Kr* and illiam Brwin C* +ieng , it is no# the House

of epresentatives .lectoral Tribunal that has the sole and e7clusive Durisdiction over ?uestions

relating to their ?ualifications"

Held4 e rule for t!e respondents*

(* The 4ourt not the H.T has Durisdiction over the present petition *

"ection (A, 8rticle B of t!e (?@A Constitution provides t!at the House of epresentatives .lectoral

Tribunal (H.T shall be the sole Dudge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and?ualifications of its 2embers* "ection 5 #($ of t!e same 8rticle identifies w!o t!e Nmem%ersN of t!e

Douse are4

"ec* 5* #($* +!e House of epresentatives shall be composed of not more than t#o hundred

and fifty members, unless ot!erwise fixed %y law, w!o s!all %e elected from legislative

districts apportioned among t!e provinces, cities, and t!e Metropolitan Manila area in accordance

wit! t!e num%er of t!eir respective in!a%itants, and on t!e %asis of a uniform and progressive


7/96

ratio, and t!ose w!o, as provided %y law, s!all %e elected t!roug! a party list system of registered

national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations* #Fnderscoring added$*

Clearly, the members of the House of epresentatives are of t#o *inds4

(9 members #ho shall be elected from legislative districtsE and

( those #ho shall be elected through a party!list system of registered national, regional, and

sectoral parties or organi$ations"

Bn t!is case, Iu!ay Party-List was entitled to two seats in t!e Douse t!at went to its first two nominees,

Mariano Mic!ael /M* elarde, Kr* and illiam Brwin C* +ieng* n t!e ot!er !and, Irot!er Mi7e, %eing t!e

fift! nominee, did not get a seat and t!us !ad not %ecome a mem%er of t!e Douse of Representatives*

Bndu%ita%ly, t!e H.T has no Durisdiction over the issue of Brother 2i*es ?ualifications"

Neither does the H.T have Durisdiction over the ?ualifications of Buhay +arty!0ist, as it is vested

by la#, specifically, the +arty!0ist 1ystem Act, upon the 4-2.0.4*

"ection O of said 8ct states t!at Nt!e 4-2.0.4 may motu proprio or upon verified complaint

of any interested party, remove or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of

any national, regional or sectoral party, organi$ation or coalition xxx*N 8ccordingly, in t!e

case of 8%ayon vs* DRE+, e ruled t!at t!e DRE+ did not gravely a%use its discretion w!en it

dismissed t!e petitions for &uo warranto against 8angat +ayo party-list and Iantay party-list

insofar as t!ey soug!t t!e dis&ualifications of said party-lists*

+!us, it is t!e Court, under its power to review decisions, orders, or resolutions of t!e CMELEC

provided under "ection A, 8rticle BJ-8 of t!e (?@A Constitution and "ection (, Rule )A of t!e CMELEC

Rules of Procedure t!at !as 6urisdiction to !ear t!e instant petition*

" 0ayug #as not denied due process"

8 party may sue or defend an action pro se* Fnder "ection ), Rule A of t!e Rules of Court, N#e$verypleading must %e signed %y t!e party or counsel representing !im, stating in eit!er case !is address

w!ic! s!ould not %e a post office %ox*N

8 6udicious perusal of t!e records s!ows t!at Layug filed pro se %ot! t!e Petition to /is&ualify and !is

Position Paper %efore t!e CMELEC "econd /ivision* Bn t!e Petition to /is&ualify, !e stated !is address

as QA' /r* Pilapil "treet, Iarangay "an Miguel, Pasig City* !ile 8tty* Rustico I* Gagate appeared as

counsel for Layug during t!e !earing conducted on 8pril 2', 2'(', !e nonet!eless failed to provide eit!er

!is or !is clients complete and correct address despite t!e manifestation t!at counsel for private

respondents could not personally serve t!e 8nswer on Layug due to t!e inexistence of t!e given address*

.eit!er did t!e Position Paper t!at was su%se&uently filed pro se on 8pril 2), 2'(' indicate any

forwarding address*

Bt s!ould %e stressed t!at a copy of t!e Resolution dated Kune (5, 2'(' was mailed to Layug at !is stated

address at QA' /r* Pilapil "treet, Iarangay "an Miguel, Pasig City, w!ic! !owever was returned to

sender #CMELEC$ after t!ree attempts due to insufficiency of said address, as evidenced %y certified

true copies of t!e registry return receipt, as well as t!e envelope containing t!e Resolution9 t!e Letter of

Pasig City Central Post ffice Postmaster B Erlina M* Pecante9 t!e Certification dated .ovem%er 2, 2'('

of t!e Postmaster of Pasig City Post ffice9 and t!e 8ffidavit of "ervice of CMELEC Iailiff 8rturo *

orel dated 8ugust (), 2'('* Conse&uently, t!e CMELEC deemed Layug to !ave received a copy of


8/96

t!e Resolution on Kune 2), 2'(', t!e date t!e postmaster made !is first attempt to serve it* +!ere %eing

no motion for reconsideration filed, t!e CMELEC issued an rder on Kuly 2O, 2'(' declaring t!e

Resolution final and executory, w!ic! t!ereafter %ecame t!e %asis for t!e issuance of t!e assailed

CMELEC En Ianc3s .IC Resolution .o* ('-') dated Kuly )', 2'('*

rom t!e fact alone t!at t!e address w!ic! Layug furnis!ed t!e CMELEC was incorrect, !is pretensions

regarding t!e validity of t!e proceedings and promulgation of t!e Resolution dated Kune (5, 2'(' for%eing in violation of !is constitutional rig!t to due process are doomed to fail* Dis refusal to rectify t!e

error despite 7nowledge t!ereof impels Fs to conclude t!at !e deli%erately stated an inexistent address

wit! t!e end in view of delaying t!e proceedings upon t!e plea of lac7 of due process* 8s t!e CMELEC

aptly pointed out, Layug contemptuously made a moc7ery of election laws and procedure %y appearing

%efore t!e Commission %y !imself or %y different counsels w!en !e wants to, and giving a fictitious

address to ensure t!at !e does not receive mails addressed to !im* De cannot t!us %e allowed to profit

from !is own wrongdoing* +o rule ot!erwise, considering t!e circumstances in t!e instant case, would

place t!e date of receipt of pleadings, 6udgments and processes wit!in Layugs power to determine at !is

pleasure* +!is, e cannot countenance*

Bt %ears stressing t!at t!e finality of a decision or resolution is a 6urisdictional event w!ic! cannot %e made

to depend on t!e convenience of a party*)/ecisions or resolutions must attain finality at some point and

its attainment of finality s!ould not %e made dependent on t!e will of a party*

Bn sum, t!e Court finds no grave a%use of discretion amounting to lac7 or excess of 6urisdiction

attri%uta%le to t!e CMELEC in issuing .IC Resolution .o* ('-') dated Kuly )', 2'(' proclaiming

Iu!ay Party-List as a winner in t!e May (', 2'(' elections on t!e %asis of t!e final and executory

Resolution dated Kune (5, 2'(' denying t!e petition to dis&ualify private respondents*

C" 2andamus does not lie to compel the 4-2.0.4 .n Banc to rule on 0ayug&s 2otion for

econsideration"

Mandamus, as a remedy, is availa%le to compel t!e doing of an act specifically en6oined %y law as a duty*

Bt cannot compel t!e doing of an act involving t!e exercise of discretion one way or t!e ot!er* "ection ),Rule O5 of t!e Rules of Court clearly provides4

"EC*)* Petition for mandamus !en any tri%unal, corporation, %oard, officer or person unlawfully

neglects t!e performance of an act w!ic! t!e law specifically en6oins as a duty resulting from an office,

trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes anot!er from t!e use and en6oyment of a rig!t or office to w!ic!

suc! ot!er is entitled, and t!ere is no ot!er plain, speedy and ade&uate remedy in t!e ordinary course of

law, t!e person aggrieved t!ere%y may file a verified petition in t!e proper court, alleging t!e facts wit!

certainty and praying t!at 6udgment %e rendered commanding t!e respondent, immediately or at some

ot!er time to %e specified %y t!e court, to do t!e act re&uired to %e done to protect t!e rig!ts of t!e

petitioner, and to pay t!e damages sustained %y t!e petitioner %y reason of t!e wrongful acts of t!e

respondent* #Emp!asis supplied$

Bn t!is case, t!e CMELEC En Ianc cannot %e compelled to resolve Layug3s Motion for

Reconsideration of t!e Resolution dated Kune (5, 2'(' t!at was filed on Kuly 2@, 2'(' after said

Resolution !ad already attained finality* Bn fact, t!e CMELEC "econd /ivision denied t!e same Motion

in its rder dated 8ugust , 2'(' precisely for t!e reason t!at it was filed out of time*

Bt s!ould li7ewise %e pointed out t!at t!e aforesaid Motion for Reconsideration was filed wit!out t!e

re&uisite notice of !earing* e !ave !eld time and again t!at t!e failure to comply wit! t!e mandatory

re&uirements under "ections and 5 of Rule (5 of t!e Rules of Court renders t!e motion defective* 8s a
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_192984_2012.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_192984_2012.html#fnt34


9/96

rule, a motion wit!out a notice of !earing is considered pro forma* .one of t!e accepta%le exceptions

o%tain in t!is case*

Moreover, t!e Motion was filed %y a new counsel Evasco, 8%inales and Evasco Law ffices wit!out a

valid su%stitution or wit!drawal of t!e former counsel* +!us said t!e CMELEC4

5* Bn spite of t!e finding t!at petitioners given address QA' /r* Pilapil "t*, Iarangay "an Miguel, PasigCity cannot %e found, a new counsel, Evasco 8%inales and Evasco Law ffices filed on Kuly 2', 2'(',

an E.+RH 8PPE8R8.CE 8" CF."EL #for petitioner Layug$ B+D M8.BE"+8+B., at t!e

%ottom of w!ic! appear t!e name and signature of petitioner Roland /* Layug expressing !is conforme,

wit! !is given #sic$ at t!e same QA' /r* Pilapil "t*, Iarangay "an Miguel, Pasig City9 it is noted t!at t!e

entry of appearance of a new counsel is wit!out t!e %enefit of t!e wit!drawal of t!e former counsel*

Considering, t!erefore, Layugs utter disregard of t!e rules of procedure for w!ic! !e deserves no

empat!y, t!e Court finds t!at t!e CMELEC exercised its discretion wit!in t!e %ounds of t!e law t!us

warranting t!e dismissal of t!e instant case*

DERERE, t!e instant Petition for Certiorari is !ere%y /B"MB""E/* " R/ERE/*

PHILIP SIGFRID FORTUN V. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, ET AL., G.R. NO.

19029, MARCH 20, 2012 !AND OTHER CONSOLIDATED CASES" LIAO

TH. FA4T1

n .ovem%er 2), 2''?, !eavily armed men %elieved led %y t!e ruling 8mpatuan family of Maguindanao

gunned down and %uried under s!oveled dirt 5A innocent civilians* Bn response to t!is carnage, President

8rroyo issued on .ovem%er 2, 2''? PP (?O declaring a state of emergency in Maguindanao, "ultan

Sudarat, and Cota%ato City*

n /ecem%er , 2''?, President 8rroyo issued PP (?5? declaring martial law and suspending t!e

privilege of t!e writ of !a%eas corpus in Maguindanao except for identified areas of t!e Moro BslamicLi%eration ront* n /ecem%er O, 2''?, President 8rroyo su%mitted !er report to Congress* n

/ecem%er ?, 2''?, Congress convened in 6oint session to review t!e validity of t!e President3s action*

Iut two days later, or on /ecem%er (2, 2''?, %efore Congress could act, t!e President issued PP (?O),

lifting martial law and restoring t!e privilege of t!e writ of !a%eas corpus*

TH. I115.1

/id t!e issuance of PP (?O), lifting martial law and restoring t!e :privilege of t!e; writ in Maguindanao,

render t!e issues moot and academicT

TH. 50ING

:+!e Court /B"MB""E/ t!e consolidated petitions on t!e ground t!at t!ey !ave %ecome M+ and

8C8/EMBC*;

/.1, the issuance of ++ 9;C, lifting martial la# and restoring the privilege of theJ #rit in

2aguindanao, rendered the issues moot and academic"

Prudence and respect for t!e co-e&ual departments of t!e government dictate t!at t!e Court s!ould %e

cautious in entertaining actions t!at assail t!e constitutionality of t!e acts of t!e Executive or t!e


10/96

Legislative department* +!e issue of constitutionality, said t!e Court in Iiraogo v* P!ilippine +rut!

Commission of 2'(', must %e t!e very issue of t!e case, t!at t!e resolution of suc! issue is unavoida%le*

+!e Court does not resolve purely academic &uestions to satisfy sc!olarly interest, !owever intellectually

c!allenging t!ese are* +!is is especially true, said t!e Court in P!ilippine 8ssociation of Colleges and

Fniversities v* "ecretary of Education, w!ere t!e issues 0reac! constitutional dimensions, for t!en t!ere

comes into play regard for t!e court3s duty to avoid decision of constitutional issues unless avoidance%ecomes evasion*1 +!e Court3s duty is to steer clear of declaring unconstitutional t!e acts of t!e

Executive or t!e Legislative department, given t!e assumption t!at it carefully studied t!ose acts and

found t!em consistent wit! t!e fundamental law %efore ta7ing t!em* 0+o dou%t is to sustain*1

f course, t!e Court !as in exceptional cases passed upon issues t!at ordinarily would !ave %een

regarded as moot* Iut t!e present cases do not present sufficient %asis for t!e exercise of t!e power of

6udicial review* +!e proclamation of martial law and t!e suspension of t!e privilege of t!e writ of !a%eas

corpus in t!is case, unli7e similar Presidential acts in t!e late O's and early A's, appear more li7e sa%er-

rattling t!an an actual deployment and ar%itrary use of political power*

The issue of the constitutionality of +roclamation 9;8; is not unavoidable for t#o reasons:

9" +resident Arroyo #ithdre# her proclamation of martial la# and suspension of the privilege of

the #rit of habeas corpus before the Doint houses of 4ongress could fulfill their automatic duty to

revie# and validate or invalidate the same"

8lt!oug! t!e a%ove vests in t!e President t!e power to proclaim martial law or suspend t!e privilege of

t!e writ of !a%eas corpus, !e s!ares suc! power wit! t!e Congress* +!us4

(* +!e +resident&s proclamation or suspension is temporary, good for only daysE

2* De must, #ithin >< hours of the proclamation or suspension, report his action inperson or in #riting to 4ongressE

)* Both houses of 4ongress, if not in session must Dointly convene #ithin > hours ofthe proclamation or suspension for the purpose of revie#ing its validity9 and

* +!e 4ongress, voting Dointly, may revo*e or affirm the +resident&s proclamation orsuspension, allo# their limited effectivity to lapse, or e7tend the same if 4ongressdeems #arranted"

xxx xxx xxx

:F;nder t!e (?@A Constitution t!e +resident and the 4ongress act in tandem in e7ercising the po#er

to proclaim martial la# or suspend the privilege of the #rit of habeas corpus" They e7ercise the

po#er, not only se?uentially, but in a sense Dointly since, after t!e President !as initiated t!e

proclamation or t!e suspension, only t!e Congress can maintain t!e same %ased on its own evaluation of

t!e situation on t!e ground, a power t!at t!e President does not !ave*

Conse&uently, although the 4onstitution reserves to the 1upreme 4ourt the po#er to revie# the

sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation or suspension in a proper suit, it is implicit

that the 4ourt must allo# 4ongress to e7ercise its o#n revie# po#ers, #hich is automatic rather

than initiated" nly w!en Congress defaults in its express duty to defend t!e Constitution t!roug! suc!

review s!ould t!e "upreme Court step in as its final rampart " The constitutional validity of the

+resident&s proclamation of martial la# or suspension of the #rit of habeas corpus is first a


11/96

political ?uestion in the hands of 4ongress before it becomes a Dusticiable one in the hands of the

4ourt"

Dere, President 8rroyo wit!drew Proclamation (?5? %efore t!e 6oint !ouses of Congress, w!ic! !ad in

fact convened, could act on t!e same* Conse&uently, t!e petitions in t!ese cases !ave %ecome moot

and t!e Court !as not!ing to review* The lifting of martial la# and restoration of the privilege of the

#rit of habeas corpus in 2aguindanao #as a supervening event that obliterated any Dusticiablecontroversy*

" 1ince +resident Arroyo #ithdre# her proclamation of martial la# and suspension of the

privilege of the #rit of habeas corpus in Dust eight days, they have not been meaningfully

implemented* +!e military did not ta7e over t!e operation and control of local government units in

Maguindanao* +!e President did not issue any law or decree affecting Maguindanao t!at s!ould

ordinarily %e enacted %y Congress* .o indiscriminate mass arrest !ad %een reported* +!ose w!o were

arrested during t!e period were eit!er released or promptly c!arged in court* Bndeed, no petition for

!a%eas corpus !ad %een filed wit! t!e Court respecting arrests made in t!ose eig!t days* +!e point is

t!at t!e President intended %y !er action to address an uprising in a relatively small and sparsely

populated province* Bn !er 6udgment, t!e re%ellion was localized and swiftly disintegrated in t!e face of a

determined and amply armed government presence*

Bn a real sense, t!e proclamation and t!e suspension never too7 off* +!e Congress itself ad6ourned

wit!out touc!ing t!e matter, it !aving %ecome moot and academic*

AMORA VS. COMELEC - ROJAS

8mora filed !is Certificate of Candidacy #CC$ for Mayor of Candi6ay, Io!ol* +o oppose 8mora, t!e

.ationalist People3s Coalition #.PC$ fielded laivar for t!e mayoralty post* Respondent landria was one

of t!e candidates for councilor of t!e .PC in t!e same municipality*

landria filed %efore t!e CMELEC a Petition for /is&ualification against 8mora* landria alleged t!at

8mora3s CC was not properly sworn contrary to t!e re&uirements of t!e mni%us Election Code #EC$

and t!e 2'' Rules on .otarial Practice* landria pointed out t!at, in executing !is CC, 8mora merely

presented !is Community +ax Certificate #C+C$ to t!e notary pu%lic, 8tty* Granada, instead of presenting

competent evidence of !is identity* Conse&uently, 8mora3s CC !ad no force and effect and s!ould %e

considered as not filed*

n !is part, 8mora insists t!at t!e Petition for /is&ualification filed %y landria is actually a Petition to

/eny /ue Course since t!e purported ground for dis&ualification simply refers to t!e defective

notarization of t!e CC* 8mora is adamant t!at "ection A) of t!e EC pertains to t!e su%stantive

&ualifications of a candidate or t!e lac7 t!ereof as grounds for dis&ualification, specifically, t!e

&ualifications and dis&ualifications of elective local officials under t!e Local Government Code #LGC$ and

t!e EC* +!us, landria3s petition was filed way %eyond t!e reglementary period of twenty-five #25$ days

from t!e date of t!e filing of t!e disputed CC* Moreover, 8mora maintains t!at !is CC is properly

notarized and not defective, and t!e presentation of !is C+C to t!e notary pu%lic to w!om !e was

personally 7nown sufficiently complied wit! t!e re&uirement t!at t!e CC %e under oat!*

The nd ivision of the 4-2.0.4 granted the petition and dis?ualified Amora" +ending 2,

Amora #on the elections but his 2 #as denied by 4-2.0.4 en banc" Dence, t!is petition"

I115.4


12/96

Khether or not an improperly s#orn 4-4 is e?uivalent to possession of a ground for

dis?ualification"

H.04

No, it is not a ground for dis?ualification because it is not one among those enumerated in

1ection 9 or < of the -mnibus election 4ode and 1ection > of the 0G4* 8 petition fordis&ualification on t!e one !and, can %e premised on "ection (2 or O@ of t!e EC, or "ection ' of t!e

LGC* n t!e ot!er !and, a petition to deny due course to or cancel a 4o4 can only be grounded on

a statement of a material representation in the said certificate that is false*

The petitions also have different effects* !ile a person #ho is dis?ualified under 1ection < is

merely prohibited to continue as a candidate, the person #hose certificate is cancelled or denied

due course under 1ection =< is not treated as a candidate at all, as if heLshe never filed a 4o4"

+!us, in Miranda v* 8%aya, t!is Court made t!e distinction t!at a candidate #ho is dis?ualified under

1ection < can validly be substituted under 1ection == of the -.4 because heLshe remains a

candidate until dis?ualified9 but a person #hose 4o4 has been denied due course or cancelled

under 1ection =< cannot be substituted because heLshe is never considered a candidate *

4ompetent evidence of identity is not re?uired in cases #here the affiant is personally *no#n to

the Notary +ublic, w!ic! is t!e case !erein* +!e records reveal t!at :petitioner; su%mitted to t!is

Commission a sworn affidavit executed %y .otary Pu%lic Granada, w!o notarized :petitioner3s; CC,

affirming in !is affidavit t!at !e personally 7nows :petitioner;* :Respondent;, on t!e ot!er !and, presented

no evidence to counter Granada3s declarations* Dence, Granada:3s; affidavit, w!ic! narrates in detail !is

personal relation wit! :petitioner;, s!ould %e deemed sufficient*

+ec!nicalities and procedural niceties in election cases s!ould not %e made to stand in t!e way of t!e true

will of t!e electorate* Laws governing election contests must %e li%erally construed to t!e end t!at t!e will

of t!e people in t!e c!oice of pu%lic officials may not %e defeated %y mere tec!nical o%6ections*

BAYAN MUNA VS ROMULO GR NO. 1#9$1% - BARDO&UILLO

FA4T1 -F TH. 4A1.:

+!is petition for certiorari see7s to nullify t!e 0.on-"urrender 8greement1 concluded %y and

%etween t!e RP and F"8* Petitioner Bayan 2una is a duly registered party!list group established to

represent the marginali$ed sectors of society * Respondent 8l%erto Romulo was impleaded in !is

capacity as t!en Executive "ecretary in place of Ilas * ple, deceased "ecretary of oreign 8ffairs* +!e

relevant treaties and laws in t!is case are4

#($ +!e ome statute #hich established I44 #ith the po#er to e7ercise its Durisdiction over

persons for the most serious crimes of international concern such as genocide, crimes against

humanity, #ar crimes, and crimes of aggression and shall be complementary to the nationalcriminal Durisdictions* The ome statute #as signed by 4harge d&Affaires .nri?ue A" 2analo and

#as not ratified by the 4ongress as of the filing of the instant petition"

#2$ RP-F" .on-"urrender 8greement, t!e RP, represented %y t!en /8 "ecretary ple, agreed wit! and

accepted t!e F" proposals em%odied under t!e F" Em%assy .ote adverted to and put in effect t!e

8greement wit! t!e F" government* Bn esse, the Agreement aims to protect #hat it refers to and

defines as Mpersons of the + and 51 from frivolous and harassment suits that might be brought

against them in international tribunals* Bt is reflective of t!e increasing pace of t!e strategic security


13/96

and defense partners!ip %etween t!e two countries* 8m%assador Ricciardone replied in !is letter of

cto%er 2@, 2'') t!at t!e exc!ange of diplomatic notes constituted a legally %inding agreement under

international law9 and t!at, under F" law, t!e said agreement did not re&uire t!e advice and consent of

t!e F" "enate*

I115.1:

P#L%)%C*L L*+,

. petitioners !ave legal standing to file t!e petition* #LEG8L "+8./B.G$

. t!e 8greement was contracted validly, w!ic! resolves itself into t!e &uestion of w!et!er or not

respondents gravely a%used t!eir discretion in concluding it #EJECF+BE 8GREEME.+ " EJCD8.GE

.+E"$

. t!e 8greement, w!ic! !as not %een su%mitted to t!e "enate for concurrence, contravenes and

undermines t!e Rome "tatute and ot!er treaties #R8+BBC8+B. +RE8+BE" IH "E.8+E w +E

2) 8LL MEMIER" "E.8+E F.R8+BBE/ +RE8+H " EJECF+BE 8GREEME.+$

H.0:

/.1" +.TITI-N.1 HA6. 0.GA0 1TANING

Locus standi is a right of appearance in a court of Dustice on a given ?uestion" "pecifically, it is

a party=s personal and su%stantial interest in a case w!ere !e !as sustained or will sustain direct in6ury

as a result of t!e act %eing c!allenged, and calls for more t!an 6ust a generalized grievance*

+!e term interestrefers to material interest, as distinguis!ed from one t!at is merely incidental*

+!e rationale for re&uiring a party w!o c!allenges t!e validity of a law or international agreement to allege

suc! a personal sta7e in t!e outcome of t!e controversy is to assure t!e concrete adverseness w!ic!

s!arpens t!e presentation of issues upon w!ic! t!e court so largely depends for illumination of difficultconstitutional &uestions* 0ocus standi, ho#ever, is merely a matter of procedure and it has been

recogni$ed that, in some cases, suits are not brought by parties #ho have been personally inDured

by the operation of a la# or any other government act, but by concerned citi$ens, ta7payers, or

voters #ho actually sue in the public interest"Going %y t!e petition, petitioner=s representatives

pursue t!e instant suit primarily as concerned citizens raising issues of transcendental importance, %ot!

for t!e Repu%lic and t!e citizenry as a w!ole* In cases of transcendental importance, #e #rote again

in Bayan v" amora, MThe 4ourt may rela7 the standing re?uirements and allo# a suit to prosper

even #here there is no direct inDury to the party claiming the right of Dudicial revie#"

/.1" TH. AG..2.NT I1 4-NTA4T. 6A0I0/

8n e7change of notes falls Minto the category of inter!governmental agreements, #hich is aninternationally accepted form of international agreement" +!e terms exc!ange of notes and

executive agreements !ave %een used interc!angea%ly, exc!ange of notes %eing considered a form of

executive agreement t!at %ecomes %inding t!roug! executive action* n t!e ot!er !and, executive

agreements concluded %y t!e President sometimes ta7e t!e form of exc!ange of notes and at ot!er

times t!at of more formal documents denominated agreements= or protocols* Bt is fairly clear from t!e

foregoing dis&uisition t!at E. I-'2@-')%e it viewed as t!e .on-"urrender 8greement itself, or as

an integral instrument of acceptance t!ereof or as consent to %e %oundis a recognized mode of

concluding a legally %inding international written contract among nations*


14/96

N-" The Agreement does not need the concurrence of the 4ongress and does not undermine the

ome 1t

+!e 4ourt has, in Eastern "ea +rading, as reiterated in Iayan,, given recognition to the obligatory

effect of e7ecutive agreements #ithout the concurrence of the 1enate 4 x x x :TJhe right of the

.7ecutive to enter into binding agreements #ithout the necessity of subse?uent 4ongressional

approval has been confirmed by long usage" rom t!e earliest days of our !istory, we !ave enteredexecutive agreements covering suc! su%6ects as commercial and consular relations, most favored-nation

rig!ts, patent rig!ts, trademar7 and copyrig!t protection, postal and navigation arrangements and t!e

settlement of claims* +!e validity of t!ese !as never %een seriously &uestioned %y our courts*

International agreements may be in the form of

(9 treaties that re?uire legislative concurrence after e7ecutive ratificationE or

( e7ecutive agreements that are similar to treaties, e7cept that they do not re?uire legislative

concurrence and are usually less formal and deal #ith a narro#er range of subDect matters than

treaties*

5nder international la#, there is no difference bet#een treaties and e7ecutive agreements in terms

of their binding effects on the contracting states concerned"

+!e 8greement does not contravene or undermine, nor does it differ from, t!e Rome "tatute* ar from

going against eac! ot!er, one complements t!e ot!er* 8s a matter of fact, t!e principle of

complementarity underpins t!e creation of t!e BCC* 8s aptly pointed out %y respondents and admitted %y

petitioners, t!e 6urisdiction of t!e BCC is to %e complementary to national criminal 6urisdictions* +!is

provision indicates t!at primary 6urisdiction over t!e so-called international crimes rests, at t!e first

instance, wit! t!e state w!ere t!e crime was committed9 secondarily, wit! t!e BCC in appropriate

situations contemplated under 8rt* (A, par* ( of t!e Rome "tatute*

B. "FM4

+etititioners have legal standing because such petition is of transcendental importance"

.7ecutive may enter into international agreements through formal agreement or e7change of

notes and both are recogni$ed as international agreements"

A&UILINO &. PIMENTEL, JR., ET.AL. VS. SENATE COMMITTEE OF THE 'HOLE

- ENGUITO

+!e 8ntecedents

n (5 "eptem%er 2''@, "enator Panfilo Lacson #"enator Lacson$ delivered a privilege speec! entitled

NSa%an ng Iayan, IantayanUN2 Bn !is privilege speec!, "enator Lacson called attention to t!e

congressional insertion in t!e 2''@ General 8ppropriations 8ct, particularly t!e P2'' million appropriated

for t!e construction of t!e President Carlos P* Garcia 8venue Extension from "ucat Luzon Expressway to

"ucat Road in ParaVa&ue City including Rig!t-of-ay #R$, and anot!er P2'' million appropriated for

t!e extension of C-5 road including R* "enator Lacson stated t!at C-5 is w!at was formerly called

President Carlos P* Garcia 8venue and t!at t!e second appropriation covers t!e same stretc! from

"ucat Luzon Expressway to "ucat Road in ParaVa&ue City* "enator Lacson in&uired from /IM "ecretary

Rolando 8ndaya, Kr* a%out t!e dou%le entry and was informed t!at it was on account of a congressional


15/96

insertion* "enator Lacson furt!er stated t!at w!en !e followed t!e narrow trail leading to t!e dou%le entry,

it led to "enator illar, t!en t!e "enate President*

Petitioners raised t!e following grounds4

(* +!e transfer of t!e complaint against "enator illar from t!e Et!ics Committee to t!e "enate

Committee of t!e !ole is violative of "enator illar3s constitutional rig!t to e&ual protection9

2* +!e Rules adopted %y t!e "enate Committee of t!e !ole for t!e investigation of t!e complaint filed %y

"enator Madrigal against "enator illar is violative of "enator illar3s rig!t to due process and of t!e

ma6ority &uorum re&uirement under 8rt* B, "ec* (O#2$ of t!e Constitution9 and

)* +!e "enate Committee of t!e !ole li7ewise violated t!e due process clause of t!e Constitution w!en

it refused to pu%lis! t!e Rules of t!e "enate Committee of t!e !ole in spite of its own provision :w!ic!;

re&uire:s; its effectivity upon pu%lication*

Bn its Comment, respondent argues t!at4

(* +!e instant petition s!ould %e dismissed for failure to 6oin or implead an indispensa%le party* Bn t!e

alternative, t!e instant petition s!ould %e arc!ived until suc! time t!at t!e said indispensa%le party !as

%een 6oined or impleaded and afforded t!e opportunity to %e !eard9

2* +!ere was no grave a%use of discretion on t!e part of respondent Committee9

)* Petitioners are not entitled to a writ of pro!i%ition for failure to prove grave a%use of discretion on t!e

part of respondent Committee of t!e !ole9

* +!e principle of separation of powers must %e up!eld9

5* +!e instant petition must %e dismissed for %eing premature* Petitioners failed to o%serve t!e doctrine or

primary 6urisdiction or prior resort9

O* Bt is wit!in t!e power of Congress to discipline its mem%ers for disorderly %e!avior9

A* +!e determination of w!at constitutes disorderly %e!avior is a political &uestion w!ic! exclusively

pertains to Congress9

@* +!e Bnternal Rules of t!e "enate are not su%6ect to 6udicial review in t!e a%sence of grave a%use of

discretion9 :and;

?* +!e Rules of t!e Et!ics Committee, w!ic! !ave %een duly pu%lis!ed and adopted allow t!e adoption of

supplementary rules to govern ad6udicatory !earings*(

The Issues

(* !et!er "enator Madrigal, w!o filed t!e complaint against "enator illar, is an indispensa%le party in

t!is petition9

2* !et!er t!e petition is premature for failure to o%serve t!e doctrine of primary 6urisdiction or prior

resort9

)* !et!er t!e transfer of t!e complaint against "enator illar from t!e Et!ics Committee to t!e "enate

Committee of t!e !ole is violative of "enator illar3s rig!t to e&ual protection9


16/96

* !et!er t!e adoption of t!e Rules of t!e Et!ics Committee as Rules of t!e "enate Committee of t!e

!ole is a violative of "enator illar3s rig!t to due process and of t!e ma6ority &uorum re&uirement under

8rt* B, "ection (O#2$ of t!e Constitution9 and

5* !et!er pu%lication of t!e Rules of t!e "enate Committee of t!e !ole is re&uired for t!eir effectivity*

uling:

Bndispensa%le Party

Bn t!is case, 1enator 2adrigal is not an indispensable party to the petition before the 4ourt" !ile it

may %e true t!at s!e !as an interest in t!e outcome of t!is case as t!e aut!or of P*"* Resolution A'O, t!e

issues in this case are matters of Durisdiction and procedure on the part of the 1enate 4ommittee

of the Khole #hich can be resolved #ithout affecting 1enator 2adrigal&s interest * +!e nature of

1enator 2adrigal&s interest in this case is not of the nature that this case could not be resolved

#ithout her participation"

octrine of +rimary @urisdiction

+!e doctrine of primary 6urisdiction does not apply to t!is case* +!e Court !as ruled4

x x x Bt may occur t!at t!e Court !as 6urisdiction to ta7e cognizance of a particular case, w!ic! means t!at

t!e matter involved is also 6udicial in c!aracter* Dowever, if t!e case is suc! t!at its determination

re&uires t!e expertise, specialized s7ills and 7nowledge of t!e proper administrative %odies %ecause

tec!nical matters or intricate &uestions of fact are involved, t!en relief must first %e o%tained in an

administrative proceeding %efore a remedy will %e supplied %y t!e courts even t!oug! t!e matter is wit!in

t!e proper 6urisdiction of t!e court* x x x

+!e issues presented !ere do not re&uire t!e expertise, specialized s7ills and 7nowledge of respondent

for t!eir resolution* n t!e contrary, t!e issues !ere are purely legal &uestions w!ic! are wit!in t!e

competence and 6urisdiction of t!e Court, and not an administrative agency or t!e "enate to resolve*

8s regards respondent3s invocation of separation of powers, t!e Court reiterates t!at Nt!e inviolate

doctrine of separation of powers among t!e legislative, executive or 6udicial %ranc!es of government %y

no means prescri%es for a%solute autonomy in t!e disc!arge %y eac! of t!at part of t!e governmental

power assigned to it %y t!e sovereign people*N+!us, it !as %een !eld t!at Nt!e power of 6udicial review is

not so muc! power as it is :a; duty imposed on t!is Court %y t!e Constitution and t!at we would %e remiss

in t!e performance of t!at duty if we decline to loo7 %e!ind t!e %arriers set %y t!e principle of separation

of powers*N +!e Court, t!erefore, is not precluded from resolving t!e legal issues raised %y t!e mere

invocation %y respondent of t!e doctrine of separation of powers* n t!e contrary, t!e resolution of t!e

legal issues falls wit!in t!e exclusive 6urisdiction of t!is Court*

Transfer of the 4omplaint from the .thics 4ommittee to the 1enate 4ommittee on the Khole

Reviewing t!e events t!at led to t!e constitution of t!e "enate Committee of t!e !ole, t!e Court notes

t!at upon t!e election of "enator Enrile as "enate President on (A .ovem%er 2''@, t!e Et!ics Committee

was also reorganized*

The ules of the .thics 4ommittee provide that Oall matters relating to the conduct, rights,

privileges, safety, dignity, integrity and reputation of the 1enate and its 2embers shall be under

the e7clusive Durisdiction of the 1enate 4ommittee on .thics and +rivileges"ODowever, in t!is case,

t!e refusal of t!e Minority to name its mem%ers to t!e Et!ics Committee stalled t!e investigation* Bn s!ort,


17/96

w!ile ordinarily an investigation a%out one of its mem%ers3 alleged irregular or unet!ical conduct is wit!in

t!e 6urisdiction of t!e Et!ics Committee, t!e Minority effectively prevented it from pursuing t!e

investigation w!en t!ey refused to nominate t!eir mem%ers to t!e Et!ics Committee* Even "enator illar

called t!e Et!ics Committee a 7angaroo court and declared t!at !e would answer t!e accusations against

!im on t!e floor and not %efore t!e Et!ics Committee* Given t!e circumstances, the referral of the

investigation to the 4ommittee of the Khole #as an e7traordinary remedy underta*en by the

.thics 4ommittee and approved by a maDority of the members of the 1enate"

Adoption of the ules of the .thics 4ommittee by the 1enate 4ommittee of the Khole

8gain, we reiterate t!at, considering t!e circumstances of t!is case, the referral of the investigation by

the .thics 4ommittee to the 1enate 4ommittee of the Khole is an e7traordinary remedy that does

not violate 1enator 6illar&s right to due process * Bn t!e same manner, t!e adoption by the 1enate

4ommittee of the Khole of the ules of the .thics 4ommittee does not violate 1enator 6illar&s

right to due process"

The 4onstitutional right of the 1enate to promulgate its o#n rules of proceedings has been

recogni$ed and affirmed by this 4ourt"

The only limitation to the po#er of 4ongress to promulgate its o#n rules is the observance of

?uorum, voting, and publication #hen re?uired"As long as these re?uirements are complied #ith,

the 4ourt #ill not interfere #ith the right of 4ongress to amend its o#n rules*

+rior +ublication

Petitioners assail t!e non-pu%lication of t!e Rules of t!e "enate Committee of t!e !ole* Respondent

counters t!at pu%lication is not necessary %ecause t!e "enate Committee of t!e !ole merely adopted

t!e Rules of t!e Et!ics Committee w!ic! !ad %een pu%lis!ed in t!e fficial Gazette on 2) Marc! 2''?*

Respondent alleges t!at t!ere is only one set of Rules t!at governs %ot! t!e Et!ics Committee and t!e

"enate Commitee of t!e !ole*

Bf it was t!e intention of t!e "enate for its present rules on legislative in&uiries to %e effective even in t!e

next Congress, it could !ave easily adopted t!e same language it !ad used in its main rules regarding

effectivity*

Lest t!e Court %e misconstrued, it s!ould li7ewise %e stressed t!at not all orders issued or proceedings

conducted pursuant to t!e su%6ect Rules are null and void* nly t!ose t!at result in violation of t!e rig!ts

of witnesses s!ould %e considered null and void, considering t!at t!e rationale for t!e pu%lication is to

protect t!e rig!ts of t!e witnesses as expressed in "ection 2(, 8rticle B of t!e Constitution* "ans suc!

violation, orders and proceedings are considered valid and effective*

The 4onstitution does not re?uire publication of the internal rules of the House or 1enate" "ince

rules of the House or the 1enate that affect only their members are internal to the House or

1enate, such rules need not be published, unless such rules e7pressly provide for their

publication before the rules can ta*e effect"

Dowever, if t!e "enate is constituted as a Committee of t!e !ole, a ma6ority of t!e "enate is re&uired to

constitute a &uorum to do %usiness pursuant to "ection (O#2$, 8rticle B of t!e Constitution*)5 t!erwise,

t!ere will %e a circumvention of t!is express provision of t!e Constitution on &uorum re&uirement*


18/96

%viously, the ules of the 1enate 4ommittee of the Khole re?uire modification to comply #ith

re?uirements of ?uorum and voting #hich the 1enate must have overloo*ed in this case * Bn any

event, in case of conflict bet#een the ules of the 1enate 4ommittee of the Khole and the

4onstitution, the latter #ill of course prevail"

DERERE, we GR8.+ t!e petition in part* +!e referral of t!e complaint %y t!e Committee on Et!ics

and Privileges to t!e "enate Committee of t!e !ole s!all ta7e effect only upon pu%lication of t!e Rulesof t!e "enate Committee of t!e !ole*

AMPATUAN V. PUNO - VERONILLA

FA4T1:

n 2 .ov* 2''?, t!e day after t!e Maguindanao Massacre, t!en Pres* 8rroyo issued Proclamation (?O,

placing 0t!e Provinces of Maguindanao and "ultan Sudarat and t!e City of Cota%ato under a state of

emergency*1 "!e directed t!e 8P and t!e P.P 0to underta7e suc! measures as may %e allowed %y t!e

Constitution and %y law to prevent and suppress all incidents of lawless violence1 in t!e named places*

+!ree days later, s!e also issued 8 2A) 0transferring1 supervision of t!e 8RMM from t!e ffice of t!ePresident to t!e /BLG* "!e su%se&uently issued 8 2A)-8, w!ic! amended t!e former 8 #t!e term

0transfer1 used in 8 2A) was amended to 0delegate1, referring to t!e supervision of t!e 8RMM %y t!e

/BLG$*

4laiming that the +resident&s issuances encroached on the A22&s autonomy, petitioners

8mpatuan et al*, all A22 officials, filed this petition for prohibition under ule 8" +!e alleged t!at

t!e President3s proclamation and orders encroac!ed on t!e 8RMM3s autonomy as t!ese issuances

empowered t!e /BLG "ecretary to ta7e over 8RMM3s operations and to seize t!e regional government3s

powers* +!ey also claimed that the +resident had no factual basis for declaring a state of

emergency, especially in t!e Province of "ultan Sudarat and t!e City of Cota%ato, w!ere no critical

violent incidents occurred* +!e deployment of troops and t!e ta7ing over of t!e 8RMM constitutes an

invalid exercise of t!e President3s emergency powers* Petitioners as7ed t!at Proclamation (?O as well

as 8s 2A) and 2A)-8 %e declared unconstitutional*

Issue4

K-N the +resident invalidly e7ercised emergency po#ers #hen she called out the AF+ and the

+N+ to prevent and suppress all incidents of la#less violence in 2aguindanao, 1ultan Pudarat,

and 4otabato 4ity

H.04

#same wit! "CR8$

The deployment is not by itself an e7ercise of emergency po#ers as understood under 1ection C

(, Article 6I of the 4onstitution, w!ic! provides4

"EC+B. 2)* x x x #2 In times of #ar or other national emergency, the 4ongress may, by

la#, authori$e the +resident, for a limited period and subDect to such restrictions as it may

prescribe, to e7ercise po#ers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national


19/96

policy" 5nless sooner #ithdra#n by resolution of the 4ongress, such po#ers shall cease

upon the ne7t adDournment thereof*

+!e +resident did not proclaim a national emergency, only a state of emergency in the three

places mentioned* 8nd she did not act pursuant to any la# enacted by 4ongress that authori$ed

her to e7ercise e7traordinary po#ers" The calling out of the armed forces to prevent or suppress

la#less violence in such places is a po#er that the 4onstitution directly vests in the +resident"1he did not need a congressional authority to e7ercise the same"

+!e +resident&s call on the armed forces to prevent or suppress la#less violence springs from the

po#er vested in her under 1ection 9


20/96

stabili$e the situation, the +resident had to ta*e preventive action* "!e called out t!e armed forces

to control t!e proliferation of loose firearms and dismantle t!e armed groups t!at continuously t!reatened

t!e peace and security in t!e affected places*

"ince petitioners are not a%le to demonstrate t!at t!e proclamation of state of emergency in t!e su%6ect

places and t!e calling out of t!e armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence t!ere !ave clearly

no factual %ases, t!e Court must respect t!e President3s actions*

NAPOCOR VS TUAZON GR 1902 - SAMONTE

FA4T14

.apocor3s transmission line traversed on respondent3s property* Respondents demands t!at t!ey %e paid

full value of t!eir land as 6ust compensation* .8PCR argues t!at it s!all only pay easement fee

pursuant to section )-a#%$ its c!arter, R*8* O)?5, w!ic! prescri%es a formula for easement fee*

(In this case, instead of initiating expropriation proceedings, NAPOCOR entered into a mere right of way

agreement with Mr. Ta!on which inc"ded the payment for #damages on impro$ements, easement tower

and occpancy fees and, additiona" damaged impro$ements% pro$ided nder RA &'). Respondentsthereafter fi"ed a case to demand *st compensation +t this was dismissed +y the RTC +ased on the

motion of NAPOCOR stating that the respondents were a"ready rendered f"" satisfaction of their c"aims.

CA, howe$er, re$ersed the decision of the RTC stating that the demo"ition of the "and as we"" as the

insta""ation of the transmission "ines constittes #taing% nder the power of eminent domain. Ths,

respondents sho"d +e entit"ed to *st compensation. CA a"so r"ed that NAPOCOR cannot hide nder

the mant"e of RA &') as an excse of dismissing the c"aim of the respondents-appe""ants since the

determination of *st compensation is a *dicia" fnction.

I115.4

K-N the installation of the transmission lines is a form of ta*ing under the po#er of eminent

domain and does not establish a right!of!#ay easement Q K-N the determination of Dustcompensation is a Dudicial function

50ING

Petition of .8PCR is devoid of merit" The determination of Dust compensation in e7propriation

cases is a function addressed to the discretion of the courts, and may not be usurped by any

other branch or official of the government" The formula provided in NA+-4-&1 charter is not

binding on the court" It is only a guide"

1ection CA!(b of "A" No" C;8, as amended, is not binding on the 4ourt" The determination of

Dust compensation in eminent domain cases is a Dudicial function and that any valuation for Dust

compensation laid do#n in the statutes may serve only as a guiding principle or one of the factorsin determining Dust compensation but it may not substitute the court&s o#n Dudgment as to #hat

amount should be a#arded and ho# to arrive at such amount"

+!e failure of t!e respondents3 predecessor-in-interest #Mr* +uazon$ to oppose t!e installation of

transmission lines on t!eir land is irrelevant* +!is cannot !ave t!e effect of t!warting t!e respondents3

rig!t to 6ust compensation


21/96

Private land ta7en for t!e installation of transmission lines is to %e paid t!e full mar7et value of t!e land as

6ust compensation*

"C remanded t!e case to t!e R+C for t!e determination of 6ust compensation

1/00AB514

-minent Domain; Just Compensation; Just Compensation should e e/uivalent to the full value

of the land traversed y the transmission lines. 0

in !olding t!at 6ust compensation s!ould %e e&uivalent to t!e full value of t!e land traversed %y t!e

transmission lines, we said4 granting arguendo t!at t!e petitioner ac&uired over respondent3s property

was purely an easement of a rig!t of way, still, we cannot sustain its view t!at it s!ould pay only an

easement fee, and not t!e full value of t!e property* +!e ac&uisition of suc! an easement fails wit!in t!e

purview of t!e power of eminent domain* +!is conclusion finds support in similar cases in w!ic! t!e "C

sustained t!e award of 6ust compensation for private property condemned for pu%lic use*

Same; Same; Courts pronouncement in 1utierre(& 234 SCR* 2 !2332" that the e5ercise of the

power of eminent domain necessarily includes the imposition of ri'ht6of6way easements upon

condemned property without loss of title or possession 0 remains doctrinal and should e applied

0

t!e application of Gutierrez to t!e present case is well ta7en* +!e facts and issue of %ot! cases are

compara%le* +!e rig!t-of-way easement in t!e case similarly involved transmission lines traversing

privately owned land* Bt li7ewise !eld t!at the transmission lines not only endangered life and limb,

but restricted as #ell the o#ner&s use of the land traversed * ur pronouncement in Gutierrez -- t!at

t!e exercise of t!e power of eminent domain necessarily includes t!e imposition of rig!t-of-way

easements upon condemned property wit!out loss of title or possession t!erefore remains doctrinal and

s!ould %e applied*

Same; Same; Section 46*!" is not conclusive upon the courts 0

we !ave !eld in numerous cases t!at section )-8 #%$ is not conclusive upon t!e courts* Bn .8PCR vs

Maria Iagui, et al, we categorically !eld4 Moreover, "ection 8#%$ of R8 .o* O)?5, is not %inding on t!e

court* Bt !as %een repeatedly emp!asized t!at t!e determination of 6ust compensation in eminent domain

cases is a 6udicial function and t!at any valuation for 6ust compensation laid down in t!e statutes may

serve only as a guiding principle or one of t!e factors in determining 6ust compensation %ut it may not

su%stitute t!e court3s own 6udgment as to w!at amount s!ould %e awarded and !ow to arrive at suc!

amount*

Same; Same; the determination of 7ust compensation in e5propriation cases is a function

addressed to the discretion of the courts& and may not e usurped y any other ranch or official

of the 'overnment 66

t!e determination of 6ust compensation in expropriation cases is a function addressed to t!e discretion of

t!e courts, and may not %e usurped %y any ot!er %ranc! or official of t!e government* +!is 6udicial

function !as constitutional raison d3etre9 8rt* BBB of t!e Constitution mandates t!at no private property s!all

%e ta7en for pu%lic use wit!out payment of 6ust compensation*

LAND BAN( OF THE PHILIPPINES V. SEVERINO LISTANA !$#) S ##9 , JULY

2*, 2011" - MEDINA


22/96

RE4 Petition for review on certiorari of t!e decision of t!e C8

*'rarian Reform Law; -minent Domain; Just Compensation;

The valuation of property in e7propriation cases pursuant to A 8= (4omprehensive Agrarian

eform 0a#, is essentially a Dudicial function #hich is vested in the T4 acting as 1pecial

Agrarian 4ourt and cannot be lodged #ith administrative agencies such as the epartment ofAgrarian eform (A

!ile a petition for t!e fixing of 6ust compensation wit! t!e "pecial 8grarian Court #"8C$ is not an appeal

from t!e agrarian reform ad6udicator3s decision %ut an original action, t!e same !as to %e file wit!in t!e

(5-day period stated in t!e /epartment of 8grarian Reform 8d6udication Ioard #/8R8I$ Rules9

ot!erwise, t!e ad6udicator3s decision will attain finality* --- +o resolve t!e conflict in t!e rulings of t!e

Court, we now declare !erein, for t!e guidance of t!e %enc! and to t!e %ar, t!at t!e IE++ER RFLE is

t!at stated in P!ilippine eterans Ian7, reiterated in Lu%rica and in t!e 8ugust (, 2''A /ecision in t!is

case* +!us, w!ile a petition for t!e fixing of 6ust compensation wit! t!e "8C is not an appeal from t!e

agrarian reform ad6udicator3s decision %ut an original action, t!e same !as to %e files wit!in t!e (5-day

period stated in t!e /8R8I Rules9 ot!erwise, t!e ad6udicator3s decision will attain finality* +!is rule is not

only in record wit! law and settled 6urisprudence %ut also wit! t!e principles of 6ustice and e&uity* erily, a%elated petition %efore t!e "8C, e*g* one filed a mont!, or a year, or even a decade after t!e land

valuation of t!e /8R ad6udicator, must not leave t!e dispossessed landowner in a state of uncertainty as

to t!e true value of !is property*

+!ere exists no compelling reason to 6ustify relaxation of t!e rule on t!e timely availment of 6udicial action

for t!e determination of 6ust compensation* --- Petitioner clearly slept on its rig!ts %y not filing t!e petition

in t!e "8C wit!in t!e prescri%ed (5-day period or a reasona%le time after notice of t!e denial of its motion

for reconsideration* Even assuming t!ere was already a consummated sale wit! respect to t!e (5(*((?

!ectares and LIP3s valuation t!ereof !ad %een fully paid to t!e respondent, t!e amount already paid %y

LIP s!all %e deducted from t!e total compensation as determined %y t!e P8R8/* .ota%ly, LIP ex!i%ited

lac7 of interest in t!e disc!arge of its statutory functions as it failed to actively participate in t!e summary

administrative proceeding despite due notice of t!e !earings* Clearly, t!ere exists no compelling reason

to 6ustify relaxation of t!e rule on t!e timely availment of 6udicial action for determination of 6ust

compensation*

Remedial Law; Jud'ments; $inality of Jud'ments; * decision that has ac/uired finality ecomes

immutale and unalterale& and may no lon'er e modified in any respect& even if the

modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law& and whether it may e y

the court that rendered it or y the hi'hest court of the land; -5ceptions 666+!e only exceptions to

t!e general rule on t!e finality of 6udgments are4

0nunc pro tunc1 entries w!ic! cause no pre6udice to any party,

void 6udgments, and

w!enever circumstances transpire after t!e finality of t!e decision w!ic! render its execution

un6ust and ine&uita%le*

Bndeed, litigation must end and terminate sometime and somew!ere, even at t!e ris7 of occasional errors*

(ULAYAN V. GOV. TAN ABUBA(AR G.R. NO. 1%*29%. JULY , 2012


23/96

(4alling!-ut +o#ers .34051I6.0/ vested #ith the +resident

acts4

8fter ) mem%ers of t!e Bnternational Committee of t!e Red Cross #BCRC$ were 7idnapped %y t!e 8%u

"ayaf Group #8"G$ on Kanuary (5, 2''?, "ulu Governor +an organized t!e Civilian Emergency orce

#CE$, a group of armed male civilians w!o were redeployed to surrounding areas of Pati7ul w!ere t!ealleged 8"G mem%ers !ide* n Marc! )(, 2''?, Gov" Tan issued +roclamation No" 9!;, declaring a

state of emergency in the province* Bt descri%ed t!e 7idnapping incident as a terrorist act violative of

R8 ?)A2 or t!e Duman "ecurity 8ct* Gov* +an invo7ed "ec* O5 of t!e Local Government Code #LGC$,

w!ic! %estows on t!e Provincial Governor t!e power to carry out emergency measures during man-made

and natural disasters and calamities* Bn t!e said Proclamation, Tan called upon the +N+ and the 4.F

to set up chec*points, conduct general search and sei$ures including arrests, and other actions

necessary to ensure public safety"

n 8pril (O, 2''?, 8tty* Sulayan, et*al* filed t!e present petition for certiorari and pro!i%ition, claiming t!at

Proc* (-'? was issued wit! grave a%use of discretion, as it t!reatened fundamental freedoms guaranteed

under t!e Constitution* They contend that +roc" 9!; is an ultra vires act of the Governor, violating

1ecs" 9 and 9< of Art" 6II of the 4onstitution #hich grants the +resident sole authority to e7erciseemergency po#ers and calling!out po#ers as the chief e7ecutive and commander!in!chief of the

armed forces*

I115.1:

. Gov* +an can exercise calling-out powers %y declaring a state of emergency under t!e LGC*

. Gov* +an is clot!ed wit! aut!ority to convene t!e Civilian Emergency orce*

50ING4

+.TITI-N I1 I2+.11. KITH 2.IT" +roc" 9!; is null and void"

(* It is -N0/ the +resident, as .7ecutive, #ho is authori$ed to e7ercise emergency po#ers as

provided under 8rt* B "ec* 2) of t!e Constitution, as #ell as #hat became *no#n as the calling!out

po#ersunder 8rt* BB "ec* A t!ereof*

!ile t!e President is still a civilian, 8rt* BB "ec* ) of the 4onstitution mandates that civilian authority

is, at all times, supreme over the military, ma*ing the civilian president the nations supreme

military leader"+!e Constitution does not re&uire t!at t!e President must %e possessed of military

training and talents, %ut as Commander-in-C!ief, !e !as t!e power to direct military operations and to

determine military strategy*

Regarding t!e countrys police force, 8rt* JB "ec* O of t!e Constitution states t!at t!e "tate s!all

esta%lis! and maintain one police force, w!ic! s!all %e national in scope and civilian in c!aracter, to %eadministered and controlled %y a national police commission* 8 local chief e7ecutive, such as the

provincial governor, e7ercises operational supervision over the police, and may e7ercise control

only in day!to!day operations"

In issuing +roc" 9!;, Gov" Tan e7ceeded his authority #hen he declared a state of emergency and

called!upon the Armed Forces, the police, and his o#n 4.F" The calling!out po#ers contemplated

under the 4onstitution is .34051I6. to the +resident * 8n exercise %y anot!er official, even if !e is

t!e local c!ief executive, is ultra vires, and may not %e 6ustified %y t!e invocation of "ec* O5 of t!e LGC*


24/96

5nder 1ec" >8 of the 0G4, the governor is certainly empo#ered to enact and implement

emergency measures during these occurrences" But the *idnapping incidents in the case at bar

4ANN-T B. 4-N1I.. A1 A 4A0A2IT/ - A I1A1T.*

+!e LGC does not involve t!e diminution of central powers in!erently vested in t!e .ational Government*

The intent behind the po#ers granted to the 0G5s is fiscal, economic, and administrative in

nature* +!e Code is concerned only wit! powers t!at would ma7e t!e delivery of %asic services moreeffective to t!e constituents, and s!ould .+ %e unduly stretc!ed to confer calling-out powers on local

executives*

2* Pursuant to t!e national policy to esta%lis! one police force, the organi$ation of private citi$en

armies is proscribed" Art" 36III 1ec" > of the 4onstitution mandate that private armies and other

armed groups not recogni$ed by duly constituted authority shall be dismantled * 8ll paramilitary

forces not consistent wit! t!e citizen armed force esta%lis!ed in t!e Constitution s!all %e dissolved or,

w!ere appropriate, converted into t!e regular force* 8dditionally, 8rt* JB "ec* 2( states, N+!e preservation

of peace and order wit!in t!e regions s!all %e t!e responsi%ilities of t!e local police agencies w!ic! s!all

%e organized, maintained, supervised, and utilized in accordance wit! applica%le laws* +!e defense and

security of t!e regions s!all %e t!e RE"P."BIBLB+H +DE .8+B.8L GER.ME.+*N

RENALD F. VILANDO VS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL

TRIBUNAL CAPON

: G*R* .os* (?2(A X (?2(?, 8ugust 2), 2'(( ;

Facts4

0im*aichong ran as a representative in t!e (st /istrict of .egros riental* Iecause of t!is, !er

opponent, +aras and some other concerned citi$ens filed dis?ualification cases against

0im*aichong* +!ey alleged that 0im*aichong #as not a natural born citi$en of the +hilippines

because #hen she #as born her father #as still a 4hinese and that her mother, lost her Filipino

citi$enship by virtue of her marriage to 0im*aichong&s father* /uring t!e pendency of t!e case

against Lim7aic!ong %efore t!e CMELEC, Election day came and votes were cast* Results came in and

0im*aichong #on over her rival +aras* CMELEC after due !earing declared Lim7aic!ong as

dis&ualified* ew days after t!e counting of votes, CMELEC declared Lim7aic!ong as a dis&ualified

candidate* n t!e following days !owever, notwit!standing t!eir proclamation dis&ualifying Lim7aic!ong,

t!e 4-2.0.4 issued a proclamation announcing 0im*aichong as the #inner of the recently

conducted elections" +!is is in compliancewit! Resolution .o* @'O2 adopting t!e policy-guidelines

of not suspending t!e proclamation of winning candidates wit! pending dis&ualification cases w!ic! s!all

%e wit!out pre6udice to t!e continuation of t!e !earing and resolution of t!e involved cases* Paras

countered t!e proclamation and s!e filed a petition %efore t!e CMELEC " 0im*aichong asailed +aras&

petition arguing that since she is no# the proclaimed #inner, it should be the H.T #hich has the

Durisdiction over the matter and not the 4-2.0.4" 4-2.0.4 agreed #ith 0im*aichong*

Issues:

(* . t!e proclamation done %y t!e CMELEC is valid*2* . t!e DRE+ already ac&uired 6urisdiction over t!e case*)* . Lim7aic!ong is &ualified to !old an office in t!e Repu%lic of t!e P!ilippines

Held4
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5628986549842913969http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5628986549842913969http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5628986549842913969


25/96

(* +!e proclamation of 0im*aichong #as valid* Lim7aic!ong timely filed wit! t!e CMELEC En

Ianc !er motion for reconsideration as well as for t!e lifting of t!e incorporated directive suspending !er

proclamation* +!e filing of t!e motion for reconsideration effectively suspended t!e executionof t!e

CMELEC3s Koint Resolution* "ince t!e execution of t!e Koint Resolution was suspended, t!ere was no

impediment to t!e valid proclamation of Lim7aic!ong as t!e winner pursuant to "ection 2, Rule (? of t!e

CMELEC Rules of Procedure*

2* The H.T must e7ercise Durisdiction after 0im*aichong&s proclamation* +!e "C !as invaria%ly

!eld t!at once a #inning candidate has been proclaimed, ta*en his oath, and assumed office as a

2ember of the House of epresentatives the 4-2.0.4&s Durisdiction over election contests

relating to his election, returns, and ?ualifications ends, and the H.T&s o#n Durisdiction begins *

Bt follows t!en t!at the proclamation of a #inning candidate divests the 4-2.0.4 of its Durisdiction

over matters pending before it at the time of the proclamation" +!e party &uestioning !is

&ualification s!ould now present !is case in a proper proceeding %efore t!e DRE+, t!e constitutionally

mandated tri%unal to !ear and decide a case involving a Mem%er of t!e Douse of Representatives wit!

respect to t!e latter3s election, returns and &ualifications* +!e use of t!e word 0sole1 in "ection (A,

8rticle B of t!e Constitution and in "ection 25' of t!e EC underscores t!e exclusivity of t!e Electoral

+ri%unals3 6urisdiction over election contests relating to its mem%ers*

)* Records disclose t!at Lim7aic!ong was %orn in /umaguete City on .ovem%er ?, (?5?* +!e

governing law is t!e citizens!ip provision of t!e (?)5 Constitution* +!e DRE+, t!erefore, correctly relied

on t!e presumption of validity of t!e Kuly ?, (?5A and "eptem%er 2(, (?5? rders of t!e Court of irst

Bnstance #CB$ .egros riental, w!ic! granted t!e petition and declared Kulio "y a naturalized ilipino

a%sent any evidence to t!e contrary* espondent 0im*aichong falls under the category of those

persons #hose fathers are citi$ens of the +hilippines * #"ection (#)$, 8rticle B, (?)5 Constitution$ Bt

matters not w!et!er t!e fat!er ac&uired citizens!ip %y %irt! or %y naturalization* +!erefore, follo#ing the

line of transmission through the father under the 9;C8 4onstitution, the respondent has

satisfactorily complied #ith the re?uirement for candidacy and for holding office, as she is a

natural!born Filipino citi$en"

Respondent participated in t!e %arangay elections as a young voter in (?AO, accomplis!ed voters

affidavit as of (?@, and ran as a candidate and was elected as Mayor of La Li%ertad, .egros riental in

2''* +!ese are positive acts of election of P!ilippine citizens!ip* +!e case of Bn re4 lorencio Mallare,

elucidates !ow election of citizens!ip is manifested in actions indu%ita%ly s!owing a definite c!oice* e

note t!at respondent !ad informally elected citizens!ip after Kanuary (A, (?A) during w!ic! time t!e (?A)

Constitution considered as citizens of t!e P!ilippines all t!ose w!o elect citizens!ip in accordance wit!

t!e (?)5 Constitution*

+!e present petition filed by 6ilando #as I12I11.* +!e Court affirms t!e Marc! 2, 2'(' ecision

of the H.T declaring that 0im*aichong is not dis?ualified as 2ember of the House of

epresentativesrepresenting t!e irst /istrict, .egros riental*

"ylla%us4

Citi(enship; collateral attac8 prohiited. ilando see7s to dis&ualify Lim7aic!ong on t!e ground t!at

s!e is a C!inese citizen* +o prove !is point, !e refers to t!e alleged nullity of t!e grant of naturalization of

Lim7aic!ong3s fat!er w!ic!, !owever, is not allowed as it would constitute a collateral attac7 on t!e

citizens!ip of t!e fat!er* 5nder +hilippine la#, an attac* on a person&s citi$enship may only be done

through a direct action for its nullity"
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5628986549842913969http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5628986549842913969


26/96

Citi(enship; forfeiture; application for an alien certificate of re'istration. ilando3s assertion t!at

Lim7aic!ong cannot derive P!ilippine citizens!ip from !er mot!er %ecause t!e latter %ecame a C!inese

citizen w!en s!e married Kulio "y, as provided for under "ection ( #A$ of Commonwealt! 8ct .o* O) in

relation to 8rticle 2 #($ C!apter BB of t!e C!inese Revised .ationality Law of e%ruary 5, (?5?, li7ewise

failed* 6ilando #as not able to offer in evidence a duly certified true copy of the alleged 4hinese

evised 0a# of Nationality to prove that 0im*aichong&s mother indeed lost her +hilippine

citi$enship* De failed to esta%lis! !is case t!roug! competent and admissi%le evidence to warrant a

reversal of t!e DRE+ ruling* 8lso, an application for an alien certificate of registration(A4 is not

an indubitable proof of forfeiture of +hilippine citi$enship" -btaining an A4 by 0im*aichong&

Consolidated Cases for Political Law Review Mid-term Exam

Documents

Transcript of Consolidated Cases for Political Law Review Mid-term Exam