Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Constitutional Commission Case Digests
Constitutional Commission Case Digests
COMMON PROVISIONS
1. Aruelo v. CA
G.R. No. 107852 October 20, 1993
Quiason, J.
Facts:
Aruelo claims that in election contests, the COMELEC Rules of Procedure gives the respondent therein only five days from receipt of
summons within which to file his answer to the petition (Part VI, Rule 35, Sec. 7) and that this five-day period had lapsed when
Gatchalian filed his answer. According to him, the filing of motions to dismiss and motions for bill of particulars is prohibited by
Section 1, Rule 13, Part III of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure; hence, the filing of said pleadings did not suspend the running of the
five-day period, or give Gatchalian a new five-day period to file his answer.
Issue:
whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it allowed respondent
Gatchalian to file his pleading beyond the five-day period prescribed in Section 1, Rule 13, Part III of the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure
Held:
No. Petitioner filed the election protest with the Regional Trial Court, whose proceedings are governed by the Revised Rules of Court.
Section 1, Rule 13, Part III of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure is not applicable to proceedings before the regular courts. As
expressly mandated by Section 2, Rule 1, Part I of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the filing of motions to dismiss and bill of
particulars, shall apply only to proceedings brought before the COMELEC. Section 2, Rule 1, Part I provides:
Sec. 2. Applicability These rules, except Part VI, shall apply to all actions and proceedings brought before the Commission. Part VI
shall apply to election contests and quo warranto cases cognizable by courts of general or limited jurisdiction.
It must be noted that nowhere in Part VI of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure is it provided that motions to dismiss and bill of
particulars are not allowed in election protests or quo warranto cases pending before the regular courts.
Constitutionally speaking, the COMELEC cannot adopt a rule prohibiting the filing of certain pleadings in the regular courts. The
power to promulgate rules concerning pleadings, practice and procedure in all courts is vested on the Supreme Court (Constitution, Art
VIII, Sec. 5 [5]).
2.
excess of jurisdiction of entertaining the petition and made a reversible error of setting aside the MSPB order which has long become
final and executory. The court granted the petition of the petitioner while setting aside the decision of the CSC.
paragraph of Section 3, Article XIII, on Social Justice and Human Rights, which mandates that the State "shall guarantee the rights of
all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in
accordance with law. Specifically with respect to government employees, the right to unionize is recognized in Paragraph (5), Section 2,
Article IX-B which provides that the right to self-organization shall not be denied to government employees. The rationale for this is
that the government for all its sovereign functions also performs mundane tasks such that it is also an employer in the true sense of the
term. In fact, it is the biggest employer in the nation.
9. Salazar vs. Mathay, G.R. No. L-44061, September 20, 1976
Facts:
On January 20, 1960, petitioner Melania C. Salazar was appointed by the Auditor General confidential agent in the Office of the
Auditor General, Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). Her appointment was noted by the Commissioner of Civil Service. On
March 28, 1962 and on February 12, 1965 she was extended another appointment by way of promotion, as confidential agent in the
same office. On March 18, 1966, petitioner received a notice from the Auditor General that her services as confidential agent have been
terminated as of the close of office hours on March 31, 1966. On March 31, 1966, the Auditor General upon favorable recommendation
of Mr. Pedro Encabo, Auditor of the GSIS issued an appointment to petitioner as Junior Examiner in his office which was approved by
the Commission of Civil Service. On the same day, petitioner assumed the position. On December 27, 1966, petitioner wrote the
Commissioner of Civil Service requesting that she be reinstated to her former position as confidential agent. However, no action was
taken on said letter. Petitioner filed a petition for mandamus with the Supreme Court to compel the Auditor General to reinstate her to
her former position but the Supreme Court dismissed the petition without prejudice to her filing the proper action to the Court of First
Instance.
Issue:
(1)Whether or not the position held by the petitioner is primarily confidential or not.
(2)Whether or not the services of petitioner as confidential agent was validly terminated on the alleged ground of loss of confidence,
and if not, whether or not she could still be reinstated to said position after accepting the position of Junior Examiner in the same office.
Held:
(1)The position held by the petitioner is primarily confidential.
There are two instances when a position may be considered primarily confidential:
(1)When the President upon recommendation of the Commissioner of Civil Service (now Civil Service Commission) has declared the
position to be primarily confidential; or (2) In the absence of such declaration when by the nature of the functions of the office, there
exists close intimacy between the appointee and appointing power which insures freedom of intercourse without embarrassment or
freedom from misgiving or betrayals of personal trust or confidential matters of state. In the case before us, the provision of
Executive Order No. 265, declaring ...confidential agents in the several department and offices of the Government, unless otherwise
directed by the President, to be primarily confidential brings within the fold of the aforementioned executive order the position of
confidential agent in the Office of the Auditor, GSIS, as among those positions which are primarily confidential.(2)
Yes. Her position being primarily confidential, petitioner cannot complain that the termination of her services as confidential agent is in
violation of her security of tenure, primarily confidential positions are excluded from the merit system, and dismissal at pleasure of
officers or employees therein is allowed by the Constitution.
This should not be misunderstood as denying that the incumbent of a primarily confidential position holds office at the pleasure only of
the appointing power. It should be noted, however, that when such pleasure turns into displeasure, the incumbent is not removed
or dismissed from office his term merely expires, in much the same way as officer, whose right thereto ceases upon expiration of
the fixed term for which he had been appointed or elected, is not and cannot be deemed removed or dismissed therefrom, upon the
expiration of said term.
13. SSS Employee Asso. Vs. CA 175 SCRA 686 (July 28, 1989)
Facts: The petitioners went on strike after the SSS failed to act upon the unions demands concerning the implementation of their CBA.
SSS filed before the court action for damages with prayer for writ of preliminary injunction against petitioners for staging an illegal
strike. The court issued a temporary restraining order pending the resolution of the application for preliminary injunction while
petitioners filed a motion to dismiss alleging the courts lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. Petitioners contend that the court
made reversible error in taking cognizance on the subject matter since the jurisdiction lies on the DOLE or the National Labor Relations
Commission as the case involves a labor dispute. The SSS contends on one hand that the petitioners are covered by the Civil Service
laws, rules and regulation thus have no right to strike. They are not covered by the NLRC or DOLE therefore the court may enjoin the
petitioners from striking.
Issue: Whether or not SSS employers have the right to strike
Whether or not the CA erred in taking jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Held: The Constitutional provisions enshrined on Human Rights and Social Justice provides guarantee among workers with the right to
organize and conduct peaceful concerted activities such as strikes. On one hand, Section 14 of E.O No. 180 provides that the Civil
Service law and rules governing concerted activities and strikes in the government service shall be observed,
subject to any legislation that may be enacted by Congress referring to Memorandum Circular No. 6, s. 1987 of the Civil Service
Commission which states that prior to the enactment by Congress of applicable laws concerning strike by government employees
enjoins under pain of administrative sanctions, all government officers and employees from staging strikes, demonstrations, mass
leaves, walk-outs and other forms of mass action which will result in temporary stoppage or disruption of public service. Therefore in
the absence of any legislation allowing govt. employees to strike they are prohibited from doing so.
In Sec. 1 of E.O. No. 180 the employees in the civil service are denominated as government
employees and that the SSS is one such government-controlled corporation with an original charter, having been created under R.A.
No. 1161, its employees are part of the civil service and are covered by the Civil Service Commissions memorandum prohibiting
strikes.
Neither the DOLE nor the NLRC has jurisdiction over the subject matter but instead it is the Public Sector Labor-Management Council
which is not granted by law authority to issue writ of injunction in labor disputes within its jurisdiction thus the resort of SSS before the
general court for the issuance of a writ of injunction to enjoin the strike is appropriate
15. UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES and ALFREDO DETORRES VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
FACTS:
Dr. Alfredo B. De Torres is a Professor of the UPLB who went on a vacation leave of absence without pay from September1, 1986 to
August 30, 1989. During this period, he served as the Philippine Government official representative to the Centre on Integrated Rural
Development for Asia and [the] Pacific(CIRDAP).When the term of his leave of absence was about to expire, CIRDAP requested the
UPLB for an extension of said leave, but was denied. He was advised to report for duty and that if he failed to report within 30 days he
would be dropped from the rolls of personnel. Dr. De Torres did not report to work. After almost five years of absence without leave,
Dr. De Torres wrote the Chancellor of UPLB that he was reporting back to duty. However De Torres was informed that in the absence
of any approved application for leave of absence, he was considered to be on AWOL. Thus, he was advised to re-apply with UPLB. Dr.
DeTorres then sought for reconsideration with regard to said decision. Chancellor Villareal reversed
His earlier stand and notified DeTorres that since records at UPLB did not show that he had been officially dropped from the rolls he
may report for duty. Members of Academic Personnel Committee, ACCI-UPLB, requested the Civil Service Commission regarding the
employment status of Dr. DeTorres. The Commission issued CSC Resolution No. 95-3045 stating that DE Torres was already on AWOL
beginning September 1, 1989since his request for extension of leave of absence for one year was denied. De Torres' absence from work
was not duly authorized by UPLB. Despite the advice of Chancellor De Guzman to him that he should report for duty on or before
September 5, 1989, De Torres failed to do so. Thus, his failure to assume duty as ordered caused his automatic separation from the
service. The CA upheld the decision of the CSC.
ISSUE
WON the automatic separation of Dr. Alfredo de Torres from the civil service due to his prolonged absence without official leave is
valid.
HELD:
The CSC predicated its ruling on Section 33, Rule XVI of the Revised Civil Service Rules, which was in effect at the time. The
provision states:
"Under no circumstances shall leave without pay be granted for more than one year. If an employee who is on leave without pay for any
reason fails to return to duty at the expiration of one year from the effective date of such leave, he shall be considered automatically
separated from the service; Provided, that he shall, within a reasonable time before the expiration of his one year leave of absence
without pay, be notified in writing of the expiration thereof with a warning that if he fails to report for duty on said date, he will be
dropped from the service."
UPLB Chancellor had advised petitioner of the possibility of being dropped from the service, if he failed to return and report for duty.
This action constituted sufficient notice. The pivotal issue herein,however, is whether petitioner was indeed dropped from the service by
the University. In the case at bar, however, Petitioner De Torres was never actually dropped from the service by UP.
He remained in the UPLB's roll of academic personnel, even after he had been warned of the possibility of being dropped from the
service if he failed to return to work within a stated period. UPLB records show that no notice or order of dropping Dr. de Torres from
the rolls was ever issued by the UPLB Chancellor. On the contrary, UPLB records show Private petitioner was not only retained in the
roll of personnel; his salary was even increased three times. Moreover, he was promoted in rank with the explicit approval of the Board
of Regents, the highest governing body of UP. All these circumstances indubitably demonstrate that the University has chosen not to
exercise its prerogative of dismissing petitioner from its employ. Thus, we hold that by opting to retain private petitioner and even
promoting him despite his absence without leave, the University was exercising its freedom to choose who may teach or, more
precisely, who may continue to teach in its faculty. Even in the light of the provision of the Revised Civil Service Law, the Respondent
CSC had no authority to dictate to UP the outright dismissal of its personnel. The former could not have done so without trampling
upon the latter's constitutionally enshrine
Facts:
Petitioner files for certiorari to revoke the order of respondent Judge Yatco for cancelling his previous order for execution on the parcel
of land owned by the petitioner. The said parcel of land is being occupied by Fernando Mendoez with an agreement to pay in
installment the said land to the petitioners and that he shall voluntarily vacate the land and the payments he previously made shall be
forfeited in favor of the plaintiff. A civil case was filed by the petitioner against Mendoez for failure to pay as per agreement of both
parties. Petitioner later filed a motion for execution to take the land back. Defendant Mendoez moved for postponement to give both
parties sufficient time to come to an agreement which was allowed by the respondent judge. It was settled by both parties that
Mendoez will secure a GSIS loan however when he was ready to make the payment the petitioner refused to abide with their
agreement and now asking for a higher amount of money for payment. Finding no justification on the issuance of the writ of execution,
Judge Yatco quashed said order hence this petition for certiorari based on lack of jurisdiction or abuse of discretion.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent judge acted in lack of jurisdiction or abuse of discretion
RULING:
The court held that any judge has the jurisdiction to quash any writ of execution issued by him especially when it was improvidently
issued. There is no abuse of discretion by the judge since the defendant made an opposition and proved that there is subsequent verbal
agreement that amended the compromise hence the execution cannot be validly decreed without a hearing. The consequent ability of the
defendant to meet his obligations by securing a GSIS loan also justifies the courts refusal to eject him from the premises by an
execution.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent judge acted in lack of jurisdiction or abuse of discretion
RULING:
The court held that any judge has the jurisdiction to quash any writ of execution issued by him especially when it was improvidently
issued. There is no abuse of discretion by the judge since
the defendant made an opposition and proved that there is subsequent verbal agreement that amended the compromise hence the
execution cannot be validly decreed without a hearing. The consequent ability of the defendant to meet his obligations by securing a
GSIS loan also justifies the courts refusal to eject him from the premises by an execution.
COMELEC
denied for having been filed out of time must also fail. The records show that petitioners counsel of record, Atty. Amador Montajo,
received a copy of the decision on February 12, 1990. The five-day period for petitioner to file his appeal from the decision of the trial
court commenced to run from such date. Petitioners notice of appeal was filed with the trial court only on February 26, 1990, fourteen
(14) days after his counsel was served a copy of the decision. Clearly, his notice was filed out of time.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DISMISSED. The temporary restraining order dated October 25, 1990 is hereby LIFTED..
5. Relampagos vs. Cumba, 243 SCRA 690, April 27, 1995
Facts: In the synchronized elections of May 11, 1992, the petitioner and private respondent were candidates for the position of Mayor in
the municipality of Magallanes, Agusan del Norte. The latter was proclaimed the winning candidate. Unwilling to accept defeat, the
petitioner filed an election protest with the RTC of Agusan del Norte. On June 29, 1994, the trial court, per Judge Rosario F. Dabalos,
found the petitioner to have won with a margin of six votes over the private respondent and rendered judgement in favor of the
petitioner.
The private respondent appealed the decision to the COMELEC which was later on given a due course by the trial court. The petitioner
then filed with the trial court a motion for execution pending appeal. The trial court granted the petitioner's motion for execution
pending appeal despite the opposition of the private respondent. The corresponding writ of execution was forthwith issued. Thereafter,
the private respondent filed a motion for a reconsideration which was later on denied. The private respondent then filed with the
respondent COMELEC a petition for certiorari to annul the aforesaid order of the trial court granting the motion for execution pending
appeal and the writ of execution. The COMELEC granted the petition on February 9, 1995, ordering the petitioner Rosita Cumba is
ordered restored to her position as Municipality Mayor of Magallanes, Agusan del Norte, upholding its exclusive authority to decide
petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus where the COMELEC maintains that there is a special law granting it such
jurisdiction Section 50 of B.P. Blg. 697, which remains in full force as it was not expressly repealed by the Omnibus Election Code
(B.P. Blg. 881).
Issue: Whether or not the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has jurisdiction over petitions for, certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus in election cases where it has exclusive appellate jurisdiction
Held: The COMELEC has the authority to issue the extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus only in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction.By the tenor of its aforequoted Repealing Clause, it does not evidently appear that the Batasang Pambansa had intended to codify all
prior election statutes and to replace them with the new Code. It made, in fact, by the second sentence, a reservation that all prior
election statutes or parts thereof not inconsistent with any provisions of the Code shall remain in force. This being the case, the Court
painstakingly examined the aforesaid last paragraph of Section 50 of the Omnibus Election Code to determine if the former is
inconsistent with any of the provisions of the latter. It found none. In the face of the foregoing disquisitions, the Court must, as it now
does, abandon the ruling in the Garcia and Uy and Veloria cases. We now hold that the last paragraph of Section 50 of B.P. Blg. 697
providing as follows: The Commission is hereby vested with exclusive authority to hear and decide petitions for certiorari, prohibition
and mandamus involving election cases, remains in full force and effect but only in such cases where, under paragraph (2), Section 1,
Article IX-C of the Constitution, it has exclusive appellate jurisdiction. Simply put, the COMELEC has the authority to issue the
extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
6. Edding vs COMELEC
Facts: During the May 1992 elections, petitioner Norbi H. Edding and respondent Pablo S. Bernardo were among the candidates for the
office of the municipal mayor of Sibuco, Zamboanga del Norte.
After the canvassing of the election returns, Bernardo was declared winner over Edding by 212 votes. Unconvinced and alleging
massive election fraud, Edding filed an election protest on June 9, 1992 with the Regional Trial Court of Sindangan, Zamboanga del
Norte.
Upon termination of the protest proceedings and recounting of the ballots, the RTC rendered judgment on July 2, 1993 proclaiming
Edding as the winner of the election for the mayoralty seat of Sibuco, Zamboanga del Norte, and declaring as null and void the election
of respondent Bernardo.
On July 8, 1993, Bernardo filed a Notice of Appeal while Edding moved for the immediate execution of the July 2, 1993 decision.[4]
Bernardo opposed Eddings motion, claiming that the RTC has no jurisdiction to order execution pending appeal, and invoked Section
17 of Rule 37 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure which allows execution only if the judgment has become final.
On July 12, 1993, the RTC approved Bernardos Notice of Appeal. On the next day however, July 13, 1993, the RTC granted Eddings
Motion for Immediate Execution, and ordered the records of the case to be forwarded to the COMELEC.Thereafter, Edding replaced
Bernardo, and assumed office on July 15, 1993.
On July 16, 1993, Bernardo filed with the COMELEC a Petition for Certiorari with Application for Preliminary Injunction and for
Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order, docketed as SPR No. 5-93 seeking to enjoin the Order of the RTC granting execution
pending appeal. The COMELEC gave due course to the petition, and issued a temporary restraining order on July 19, 1993. Finally, the
COMELEC issued the assailed Order on September 23, 1993, which Edding received on October 12, 1993.
The SC Resolution dated October 21, 1993, we granted petitioner Eddings prayer for a temporary restraining order and ordered
respondent COMELEC to cease and desist from further proceeding with SPR No. 5-93. At the same time, they required respondents
COMELEC and Bernardo to submit their Comment within ten (10) days from notice. Respondent COMELEC filed its Comment on
December 8, 1993,[9] which Bernardo opted to adopt as his own.
Petitioner filed Special Civil Action for Certiorari and Prohibition with Urgent Prayer for Writ of Preliminary Injunction/Restraining
Order, assailing the Order of the COMELEC dated September 23, 1994 issued in SPR No. 5-93 entitled Pablo S. Bernardo vs.
Honorable Judge Wilfredo G. Ochotorena, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga del Norte, Branch 9, Sindangan,
Zamboanga del Norte, and Norbi H. Edding, which ordered as follows:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing and as prayed for, the Commission En Banc hereby ORDERS the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction upon the petitioners filing of a cash bond in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) in favor
of private respondent and conditioned for the payment of damages which private respondent may suffer by reason of issuance of the
writ should the Commission finally decide that the petitioner is not entitled thereto.
Issue: Whether or not the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has jurisdiction to issue Writs of Certiorari against the interlocutory
order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in election cases.
Held: Yes. The Commission is hereby vested with exclusive authority to hear and decide petitions for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus involving election cases remains in full
force and effect but only in such cases where, under paragraph (2), Section 1, article IX-C of the Constitution, it has exclusive appellate
jurisdiction. Simply put, the COMELEC has the authority to issue the extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus only
in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
Ratio: This being the case, the Court painstakingly examined the aforesaid last paragraph of Section 50 of the Omnibus Election Code
to determine if the former is inconsistent with any of the provisions of the latter. It found none.
The present rule therefore established by the aforecited Relampagos case is as follows:
In the face of the foregoing disquisitions, the Court must, as it now does, abandon the ruling in the Garcia and Uy and Veloria cases.
We now hold that the last paragraph of Section 50 of B. P. Blg. 697 providing as follows:
The Commission is hereby vested with exclusive authority to hear and decide petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
involving election cases remains in full force and effect but only in such cases where, under paragraph (2), Section 1, article IX-C of the
Constitution, it has exclusive appellate jurisdiction. Simply put, the COMELEC has the authority to issue the extraordinary writs of
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
But notwithstanding the aforementioned pronouncements, the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in the instant case when
it enjoined the order of the RTC, dated July 13, 1993, granting petitioners motion for immediate execution. Private respondents
petition for certiorari with application for a writ of preliminary injunction before the COMELEC is anchored on the formers claim that
the trial court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in granting execution despite the filing of a
notice of appeal by private respondent within the reglementary period.
It appears however that on July 8, 1993, the same day when private respondent filed his notice of appeal with the RTC, petitioner in
turn filed his motion for immediate execution. Both actions were therefore seasonably filed within the five-day reglementary period for
filing an appeal since the decision of the RTC was promulgated in open court on July 8, 1993.
The settled rule is that the mere filing of a notice of appeal does not divest the trial court of its jurisdiction over a case and resolve
pending incidents.[24] Where the motion for execution pending appeal was filed within the reglementary period for perfecting an
appeal, as in the case at bench, the filing of a notice of appeal by the opposing party is of no moment and does not
divest the trial court of its jurisdiction to resolve the motion for immediate execution of the judgment pending appeal because the court
must hear and resolve it for it would become part of the records to be elevated on appeal. Since the court has jurisdiction to act on the
motion at the time it was filed, that jurisdiction continued until the matter was resolved and was not lost by the subsequent action of the
opposing party.[25]
Considering however that the term of office for the disputed mayoralty seat will already expire on June 30, 1995, in addition to the fact
that the election for the next term of office for the contested post has recently been concluded, the instant petition has therefore become
moot.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.
7. GALIDO vs. COMELEC
193 SCRA 78
Facts: Petitioner Galido and private respondent Galeon were candidates during the January 1988 local elections for mayor of GarciaHernandez, Bohol. Petitioner was proclaimed the duly-elected Mayor. Private respondent filed an election protest before the RTC. After
hearing, the said court upheld the proclamation of petitioner. Private respondent appealed the RTC decision to the COMELEC. Its First
Division reversed the RTC decision and declared private respondent the duly-elected mayor. After the COMELEC en banc denied the
petitioners motion for reconsideration and affirmed the decision of its First Division. The COMELEC held that the fifteen (15) ballots
in the same precinct containing the initial C after the name Galido were marked ballots and, therefore, invalid.
Undaunted by his previous failed actions the petitioner filed the present petition for certiorari and injunction before the Supreme Court
and succeeded in getting a temporary restraining order. In his comment to the petition, private respondent moved for dismissal, citing
Article IX (C), Section 2(2), paragraph 2 of the 1987 Constitution, that Final decisions, orders or rulings of the COMELEC in election
contests involving elective municipal offices are final and executory, and not appealable.
Issue: Whether or not a COMELEC decision may, if it sets aside the trial courts decision involving marked ballots, be brought to the
Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari by the aggrieved party?
Held: The fact that decisions, final orders or rulings of the COMELEC in contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices are
final, executory and not appealable, does not preclude a recourse to this Court by way of a special civil action of certiorari. Under
Article IX (A), Section 7 of the Constitution, which petitioner cites, it is stated, Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by
law, any decision, order, or ruling of each (Constitutional) Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the
aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt thereof. We resolve this issue in favor of the petitioner. We do not, however, believe
that the respondent COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in rendering the
questioned decision. The COMELEC has the inherent power to decide an election contest on physical evidence, equity, law and justice,
and apply established jurisprudence, in support of its findings and conclusions; and that the extent to which such precedents apply rests
on its discretion, the exercise of which should not be controlled unless such discretion has been abused to the prejudice of either party.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DIMISSSED.
10.PEOPLE vs. DELGADO Case Digest
189 SCRA 715, 1990
Facts: On January 14, 1988 the COMELEC received a report-complaint from the Election Registrar of Toledo City against private
respondents for alleged violation of the Omnibus Election Code. The COMELEC directed the Provincial Election Supervisor of Cebu to
conduct the preliminary investigation of the case who eventually recommended the filing of an information against each of the private
respondents for violation of the Omnibus Election Code. The COMELEC en banc resolved to file the information against the private
respondents as recommended.
Private respondents filed motions for reconsiderations and the suspension of the warrant of arrest with the respondent court on the
ground that no preliminary investigation was conducted. Later, an order was issued by respondent court directing the COMELEC
through the Regional Election Director of Region VII to conduct a reinvestigation of said cases. The COMELEC Prosecutor filed a
motion for reconsideration and opposition to the motion for reinvestigation alleging therein that it is only the Supreme Court that may
review the decisions, orders, rulings and resolutions of the COMELEC. This was denied by the court.
Issue: Whether or not the Regional Trial Court (RTC) has the authority to review the actions of the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) in the investigation and prosecution of election offenses filed in said court.
Held: Based on the Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code, it is clear that aside from the adjudicatory or quasi-judicial power of
the COMELEC to decide election contests and administrative questions, it is also vested the power of a public prosecutor with the
exclusive authority to conduct the preliminary investigation and the prosecution of election offenses punishable under the Code before
the competent court. Thus, when the COMELEC, through its duly authorized law officer, conducts the preliminary investigation of an
election offense and upon a prima facie finding of a probable cause, files the information in the proper court, said court thereby acquires
jurisdiction over the case. Consequently, all the subsequent disposition of said case must be subject to the approval of the court. The
COMELEC cannot conduct a reinvestigation of the case without the authority of the court or unless so ordered by the court
HELD: Petition is GRANTED- Section 19 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2167 is declared null and void and unconstitutional . TRO
made permanent due to the following reasons: 1. It has no statutory basis 2. Form of regulation is tantamount to a restriction of
petitioner's freedom of expression for no justifiable reason 3. Affected by the issues presented in a plebiscite should not be unduly
burdened by restrictions on the forum where the right to expression may be exercised.
10.PEOPLE vs. DELGADO Case Digest
PEOPLE vs. DELGADO
189 SCRA 715, 1990
Facts: On January 14, 1988 the COMELEC received a report-complaint from the Election Registrar of Toledo City against private
respondents for alleged violation of the Omnibus Election Code. The COMELEC directed the Provincial Election Supervisor of Cebu to
conduct the preliminary investigation of the case who eventually recommended the filing of an information against each of the private
respondents for violation of the Omnibus Election Code. The COMELEC en banc resolved to file the information against the private
respondents as recommended.
Private respondents filed motions for reconsiderations and the suspension of the warrant of arrest with the respondent court on the
ground that no preliminary investigation was conducted. Later, an order was issued by respondent court directing the COMELEC
through the Regional Election Director of Region VII to conduct a reinvestigation of said cases. The COMELEC Prosecutor filed a
motion for reconsideration and opposition to the motion for reinvestigation alleging therein that it is only the Supreme Court that may
review the decisions, orders, rulings and resolutions of the COMELEC. This was denied by the court.
Issue: Whether or not the Regional Trial Court (RTC) has the authority to review the actions of the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) in the investigation and prosecution of election offenses filed in said court.
Held: Based on the Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code, it is clear that aside from the adjudicatory or quasi-judicial power of
the COMELEC to decide election contests and administrative questions, it is also vested the power of a public prosecutor with the
exclusive authority to conduct the preliminary investigation and the prosecution of election offenses punishable under the Code before
the competent court. Thus, when the COMELEC, through its duly authorized law officer, conducts the preliminary investigation of an
election offense and upon a prima facie finding of a probable cause, files the information in the proper court, said court thereby acquires
jurisdiction over the case. Consequently, all the subsequent disposition of said case must be subject to the approval of the court. The
COMELEC cannot conduct a reinvestigation of the case without the authority of the court or unless so ordered by the court
16. TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND BROADCAST ATTORNEYS OF THE PHILS. VS. COMELEC [289 SCRA 337; G.R.
NO. 132922; 21 APR 1998]
Facts: Petitioner Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines, Inc. (TELEBAP) is an organization of lawyers of
radio and television broadcasting companies. It was declared to be without legal standing to sue in this case as, among other reasons, it
was not able to show that it was to suffer from actual or threatened injury as a result of the subject law. Petitioner GMA Network, on the
other hand, had the requisite standing to bring the constitutional challenge. Petitioner operates radio and television broadcast stations in
the Philippines affected by the enforcement of Section 92, B.P. No. 881. Petitioners challenge the validity of Section 92, B.P. No. 881
which provides: Comelec Time- The Commission shall procure radio and television time to be known as the Comelec Time which
shall be allocated equally and impartially among the candidates within the area of coverage of all radio and television stations. For this
purpose, the franchise of all radio broadcasting and television stations are hereby amended so as to provide radio or television time, free
of charge, during the period of campaign. Petitioner contends that while Section 90 of the same law requires COMELEC to procure
print space in newspapers and magazines with payment, Section 92 provides that air time shall be procured by COMELEC free of
charge. Thus it contends that Section 92 singles out radio and television stations to provide free air time. Petitioner claims that it
suffered losses running to several million pesos in providing COMELEC Time in connection with the 1992 presidential election and
1995 senatorial election and that it stands to suffer even more should it be required to do so again this year. Petitioners claim that the
primary source of revenue of the radio and television stations is the sale of air time to advertisers and to require these stations to provide
free air time is to authorize unjust taking of private property. According to petitioners, in 1992 it lost P22,498,560.00 in providing free
air time for one hour each day and, in this years elections, it stands to lost P58,980,850.00 in view of COMELECs requirement that it
provide at least 30 minutes of prime time daily for such.
Issues: (1) Whether of not Section 92 of B.P. No. 881 denies radio and television broadcast companies the equal protection of the laws.
(2) Whether or not Section 92 of B.P. No. 881 constitutes taking of property without
due process of law and without just compensation.
Held:Petitioners argument is without merit. All broadcasting, whether radio or by television stations, is licensed by the government.
Airwave frequencies have to be allocated as there are more individuals who want to broadcast that there are frequencies to assign.
Radio and television broadcasting companies, which are given franchises, do not own the airwaves and frequencies through which they
transmit broadcast signals and images. They are merely given the temporary privilege to use them. Thus, such exercise of the privilege
may reasonably be burdened with the performance by the grantee of some form of public service. In granting the privilege to operate
broadcast stations and supervising radio and television stations, the state spends considerable public funds in licensing and supervising
them. The argument that the subject law singles out radio and television stations to provide free air time as against newspapers and
magazines which require payment of just compensation for the print space they may provide is likewise without merit. Regulation of
the broadcast industry requires spending of public funds which it does not do in the case of print media. To require the broadcast
industry to provide free air time for COMELEC is a fair exchange for what the industry gets. As radio and television broadcast stations
do not own the airwaves, no private property is taken by the requirement that they provide air time to the COMELEC.
of freedom of expression. It has been held that "[mere] legislative preferences or beliefs respecting matters of public convenience may
well support regulation directed at other personal activities, but be insufficient to justify such as diminishes the exercise of rights so
vital to the maintenance of democratic institutions.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT
1. Guevarra v Gimenez 6 SCRA 813
FACTS
In 1954, the District Engineer of Sorsogon prepared a program of work and detailed estimate for the reconstruction of the Sorsogon
Central School building. Specifications consisting of five pages were likewise prepared. The Cost of painting was left out in the detailed
estimate and specifications. The papers weresubmitted to the Division Engineer in Lucena, Quezon, who returned them duly approved
with an authorized appropriation of P40,000.00"provided that painting shall be included" Where upon, the specification for painting
was accordingly made and appended to the specifications as page six. In August 1954 the District Engineer advertised an invitation to
bid for furnishing of all materials, labor and plant, for reconstruction project. Fernando Guevaras bid of P37,500 was declared lowest
and the contract was awarded to him. Eighty five days after completion of the project, Guevarra file with the Director of Public Works a
written claim for the payment of P4,620.00 representing cost of painting not covered by the contract. After hearing, Secretary of Public
Works and Communications denied the claim and two motions for reconsideration were also denied. On appeal, the Auditor General
also denied the claim. Guevarra appealed to the Supreme Court pursuant to CA 327
.ISSUE:
Whether or not the contract for the reconstruction of the school building included the painting.
HELD:
Yes. Testimonies of the employees' should be given more weight than those of the contractors. These government employees testified as
to what transpired in the performance of their duties. The presumption is that official duty has been regularly performed.[Note:The main
issue of the case has nothing to do with COA. However, note that, claims anddisbursements of public funds should have be coursed to
COA.
2. Orocio v s . COA 213 SCRA 109
FACTS:
On accident occurred at the Malaya Power Plant of the National Power Corporation (NPC) where two individuals suffered injury
Ernesto Pumaloy, an NPC employee, and Domingo Abodizo, a casual employee OPLGS, the janitorial contractor of the NPC. The two
injured personnel were brought to the hospital. NPC initially advanced the amount for hospitalization expenses for the treatment of
Abodizo, and set up this as an account receivable from OPLGS deducted on a staggered basis from the latter's billing against the NPC
until the same was fully satisfied. Subsequently, OPLGS requested a refund of the total amount deductedfrom their billings representing
payment of the advances made by the NPC. In the light of the favorablerecommendation of the NPC legal counsel, the amount of
hospitalization expenses was refunded to thecontractor OPLGS.The Unit Auditor of the Commission on Audit disallowed the refund of
the hospitalizattion expenses of Abodizo contending that under the contract, there is no employee-employer relation between the NPC
and theOPLGS employes. Hence,NPC is not answerable for such expense. General Counsel asked for a reconsideration of the said
disallowance but was denied. The COA Regional Director, herein respondent, confirmed the disallowance. NPC General Counsel
submitted a second request for reconsideration and justifies that his legal opinion is based on Sec 15-A of RA 6395 (NPC Charter)
which provides that ... all legal matters shall be handled by the General Counsel of the Corporation...
ISSUE:
Whether the disbursement on the basis of the legal opinion of the legal counsel of the NPC (quasi- judicial function) is within the scope
of the auditing power of the COA?
HELD:
The Constitution grants the COA the power, authority and duty to examine, audit and settle all accounts pertaining to the expenditures
or uses of funds and property pertaining to the Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities, including
government-owned or controlled corporations. The matter of allowing in audit a disbursement account is not a ministerial function, but
one which necessitates the exercise of discretion. Besides, the OPLGS, Abodizo's employer, admitted that the incident was purely
incidental.
But whether petitioner acted with malice, bad faith or beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction is a matter respondent Agustin
cannot dispose of unilaterally and summarily without infringing on the petitioner's right to due process.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The challenged 5th indorsement of the General Counsel of the respondent
Commission on Audit, dated 21 May 1986, Memorandum of respondent Agustin of 30 June 1986, insofar, as it holds petitioner
personally liable for the disallowed disbursement and the Debit Memo, dated 22 July 1986, of the Manager of the Accounting
Department of the National Power Corporation, are hereby set aside for being null and void.
owned by, or pertaining to, the Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities (Article IX (D-1) Section 2(1),
1987 Constitution) . That authority extends to the accounts of all persons respecting funds or properties received or held by them in any
accountable capacity. (Section 26, P.D. No. 1445). In the exercise of its jurisdiction, it determines whether or not the fiscal
responsibility that rests directly with the head and whether or not there has been loss or wastage of government resources.
Wherefore, for lack of merit, the petition is dismissed.
including those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures or
uses of government funds and properties.
FACTS:
This is a petition for review of the decision rendered by the COA regarding the Administrative case filed by petitioner against Leonardo
Estella, Auditing Examiner III of the Auditors office of Misamis Occidental. The charge was that the respondent raped Editha
Saligumba on several occasions. The COA dropped the administrative complaint due to insufficient evidence. Saligumba petition the
court to review such action taken by the COA.
ISSUE: Whether or not the court may take cognizant of the case.
RULING:
The court dismissed the petition as it held that the power of the Supreme Court to review COA decisions refers to money matters and
not to administrative cases involving the discipline of its personnel and even assuming that it does have jurisdiction to review decisions
on administrative matters as mentioned above, the court cannot do so on factual issues since its power to review is limited to legal
issues only.
7. Rebecca Barbo vs. COA (October 10, 2008)
Facts:
Petitioners are official of the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) and designated members of the Interim Board of Directors
of the San Fernando Water District (SFWD).
On December 4, 1995 and February 12, 1996, the LWUA Board of Trustees issued Board Resolution No. 313, Series of 1995 and No.
39, Series of 1996 respectively. These Board Resolutions authorized the Board of Directors of SFWD to receive reimbursable
allowances in the form of Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA), Travel Allowance, and Extraordinary and
Miscellaneous Expense (EME); Christmas Bonus; Uniform Allowance; Rice Allowance; Medical and Dental Benefits; and Productivity
Incentive Bonus.
Pursuant to the said Board Resolutions, petitioners received EME, Rice Allowance, Christmas Bonus, and PIB from SFWD during
calendar years starting 1994 to 1996.
On June 30, 1997, a Special Audit Team of COA regional Office No. III at San Fernando, Pampanga audited the financial accounts of
SFWD for the period covering January 1, 1994 to July 15, 1996. The COA Special Audit Team disallowed the payment of the abovementioned benefits and allowances received by petitioners after the same were found to be excessive contrary to Sec. 228, 162 and 163
of the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual (GAAM) and to Civil Service Commission (CSC) Resolution No. 954073 in
relation to Sec. 13 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 198 (Provincial Water Utilities Act of 1973) as amended. Petitioners were directed to
refund the benefits and allowances subject to the disallowance.
Petitioners contend that the COA lacks jurisdiction to declare whether or not LWUA Board Resolution Nos. 313 and 39 are consistent
with Sec. 13 of PD No. 198, as amended, on matters pertaining to the compensation and other benefits of the Directors of the LWD.
This is allegedly the function of the courts.
The Regional Director affirmed the disallowance. Petitioners elevated the matter to COA. COA declared that the subject bonuses and
allowances received by petitioners constituted additional compensation or remuneration. Petitioners motion for reconsideration was
denied.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the respondent has the jurisdiction to declare LWUA Resolution No. 313, S. 1995 as amended by Resolution No. 39,
S. 1996 to be totally in conflict with Sec. 13 of PD No. 198 as amended.
2. Whether or not Sec. 13, PD 198, as amended, prohibiting petitioners entitlement to RATA, EME, Bonuses and other Benefits and
Allowances.
Ruling:
The Court has already settled this issue in a myriad of cases. Particularly, on Rodolfo S. de Jesus vs. COA, the court upheld the
authority and jurisdiction of the COA to rule on the legality of the disbursement of government funds by a water district and declared
that such power does not conflict with the jurisdiction of the courts, the DBM, and the LWUA. Citing Sec. 2, Subdivision D, Article IX
of the 1987 Constitution, the Court declared that it is the mandate of the COA to audit all government agencies, including governmentowned and controlled corporations with original charters. Indeed, the Constitution specifically vests in the COA the authority to
determine whether government entities comply with laws and regulations in disbursing government funds, and to disallow illegal or
irregular disbursements of government funds. The independent constitutional body was tasked to be vigilant and conscientious in
safeguarding the proper use of the governments, and ultimately the peoples, property.
As to the second issue, a water district is a government owned and controlled corporation with a special charter since it is created
pursuant to a special law, PD 198. It is undeniable that PD 198 expressly prohibits the grant of RATA, EME and bonuses to members of
the Board of Water Districts.
8. PAL VS COA
FACTS:
PAL was then a governtment controlled corporation which majority of its shares of stock was owned by the Government Service
Insurance System (GSIS), a government corporation. To assure itself of continuous, reliable and cost-efficient supply of fuel, PAL
adopted a system of bidding out its fuel requirements under a multiple supplier set-up whereby PAL awarded to the lowest bidder sixty
percent (60%) of its fuel requirements and to the second lowest bidder the remaining forty percent(40%), provided it matched the price
of the lowest bidder.
But Department Order No. 19, s. 1974 of the defucnt Department of General Services as implemented by COA Circular No. 78-84,
Memorandum No. 498 and Memorandum No. 88-565 required PAL (also all government agencies) to purchase its fuel requirements
solely from Petron Corporation (Petron).
ISSUES:
Whether or not the COA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in holding the Dept. Order No.
19 applies to PAL.
RULING:
The court dismissed the petition for being moot and academic. PAL's corporate complexion having changed during the pendency of the
petition from government-controlled to private ownership, it is no longer under the audit jurisdiction of the COA.
Had it not been for this supervening event, COA was correct in ruling that Department Order No. 19 applied to PAL as a government
agency at that time, it nonetheless gravely abused its discretion in not exempting PAL therefrom.
COA has the exclusive authority, subject to limitations, to define the scope of its audit and examination, establish the techniques and
methods required therefore. COA can adopt as its own, simply by reiteration or by reference, without the necessity of repromulgation,
already existing rules and regulations. It may also expand the coverage thereof to agencies or instrumentalities under its audit
jurisdiction.
The reasons given by PAL for seeking exemption from the operation of Department Order No. 19 were, to our mind, meritorious. They
far outweigh the policy enunciated in Department Order No. 19 of giving preference to government sources in the filling of the needs of
the government for supplies. Thus, PAL's bidding requirement conformed to the accepted policy of the government to subject every
transaction/contract to public bidding in order to protect public interest by giving the public the best possible advantages thru open
competition and to avoid or preclude suspicion of favoritism and anomalies in the execution of public contracts.
Its multiple supplier set-up was designed precisely to meet every contingency that might disrupt its fuel supply. It bespoke of foresight,
careful planning and sound business judgment on the part of PAL. As a business operation heavily dependent on fuel supply, for PAL to
rely solely on a single supplier would indeed be impracticable. To compel it to do so would amount to a grave abuse of discretion on its
part as this might well lead to irregular, excessive or unconscionable expenditures, the very evil sought to be avoided in the creation of
the COA.
9. BAGATSING VS COMMITTEE ON PRIVITIZATION
FACTS:
President Fidel V. Ramos noted that t]he privatization program has proven successful and beneficial to the economy in terms of
expanding private economic activity, improving investment climate, broadening ownership base and developing capital markets, and
generating substantial revenues for priority government expenditure, but there is still much potential for harnessing private initiative to
undertake in behalf of government certain activities which can be more effectively and efficiently undertaken by the private sector.
Secretary Ramon R. Del Rosario, as Chairman of the Committee on Privatization endorsed to President Ramos the proposal of PNOC
to privatize 65% of the stock of Petron, open to both foreign as well as domestic investors. The Petron Privatization Working
Committee (PWC) was thus formed. It finalized a privatization strategy with 40% of the shares to be sold to a strategic partner and 20%
to the general public through the initial public offering and employees stock option plan.
Public aution took place and ARAMCO was declared as a winning bidder. Petitioner sought nullify the bidding conducted for the sale
of a block of shares and the award made to ARAMCO as the highest bidder.
ISSUES:
Whether or not that the said public bidding is null and void.
RULING:
Under said COA Circular, there is a failure of bidding when: 1) there is only one offeror; or (2) when all the offers are non-complying
or unacceptable. While two offerors were disqualified, PETRONAS for submitting a bid below the floor price and WESTMONT for
technical reasons,not all the offerors were disqualified. To constitute a failed bidding under the COA Circular, all the offerors must be
disqualified.
Petitioners urge that in effect there was only one bidder and that it can not be said that there was a competition on an equal footing. But
the COA Circular does not speak of accepted bids but of offerors, without distinction as to whether they were disqualified.
The COA itself, the agency that adopted the rules on bidding procedure to be followed by government offices and corporations, had
upheld the validity and legality of the questioned bidding. The interpretation of an agency of its own rules should be given more weight
than the interpretation by that agency of the law it is merely tasked to administer.
Petition was dismissed.
ACCOUNTABILITY OF OFFICERS
4.Garcia v. Mojica
G.R. No. 139043 September 10, 1999
Facts: On May 7, 1998, petitioner, in his capacity as Cebu City mayor, signed a contract with F.E. Zuellig for the supply of asphalt to
the city. The contract covers the period 1998-2001, which was to commence on September 1998 upon F.E. Zuelligs first delivery.
Sometime in March 1999, news reports came out regarding the alleged anomalous purchase of asphalt by Cebu City, through the
contract signed by petitioner. This prompted the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) to conduct an inquiry into the matter. Respondent
Jesus Rodrigo T. Tagaan, special prosecution officer of the Office of the Ombudsman, was assigned to conduct the inquiry, docketed as
INQ-VIS-99-0132. After investigation, he recommended that the said inquiry be upgraded to criminal and administrative cases against
petitioner and the other city officials involved. Respondent Arturo C. Mojica, Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas, approved this
recommendation
Issues: 1. Whether Garcia may be held administratively liable. 2. Whether the Ombudsman was stripped of its powers by virtue of the
Local Government Code.
Held: 1. No. As previously held, a reelected local official may not be held administratively accountable for misconduct committed
during his prior term of office. The rationale is that when the electorate put him back into office, it is presumed that it did so with full
knowledge of his life and character, including his past misconduct. If, armed with such knowledge, it still reelects him, then such is
considered a condonation of his past misdeeds. However, in the present case, respondents point out that the contract entered into by
petitioner with F.E. Zuellig was signed just 4 days before the date of the elections. It was not made an issue during the election, and so
the electorate could not be said to have voted for petitioner with knowledge of this particular aspect of his life and character. Petitioner
can no longer be held administratively liable for an act done during his previous term. The agreement between petitioner and F.E.
Zuellig was perfected on the date the contract was signed, during petitioners prior term. At that moment, petitioner already acceded to
the terms of the contract, including stipulations now alleged to be prejudicial to the city government. Thus, any culpability petitioner
may have in signing the contract already became extant on the day the contract was signed. It hardly matters that the deliveries under
the contract are supposed to have been made months later. While petitioner can no longer be held administratively liable for signing the
contract with F. E. Zuellig, this should not prejudice the filing of any case, other than administrative, against petitioner. The ruling does
not mean the total exoneration of petitioners wrongdoing, if any, that might have been committed in signing the subject contract. The
ruling is now limited to the question of his administrative liability therefore, and it is our considered view that he may not.
2. No. There is nothing in the LGC to indicate that it has repealed, whether expressly or impliedly, the pertinent provisions of the
Ombudsman Act. The two statutes on the specific matter in question are not so inconsistent, let alone irreconcilable, as to compel us to
only uphold one and strike down the other. The decision of the Ombudsman (6 month suspension) will prevail over the LGC (60day
suspension) if the evidence of guilt is strong. The power to preventively suspend is available not only to the Ombudsman but also to the
Deputy Ombudsman.
complaint or on 23 October 2003, a day after the House Committee on Justice voted to dismiss it, the second impeachment complaint
was filed with the Secretary General of the House by House Representatives against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., founded on the
alleged results of the legislative inquiry initiated by above-mentioned House Resolution. The second impeachment complaint was
accompanied by a "Resolution of Endorsement/Impeachment" signed by at least 1/3 of all the Members of the House of
Representatives. Various petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus were filed with the Supreme Court against the House of
Representatives, et. al., most of which petitions contend that the filing of the second impeachment complaint is unconstitutional as it
violates the provision of Section 5 of Article XI of the Constitution that "[n]o impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the
same official more than once within a period of one year."
Issue:
Whether the power of judicial review extends to those arising from impeachment proceedings.
Held:
The Court's power of judicial review is conferred on the judicial branch of the government in Section 1, Article VIII of our present 1987
Constitution. The "moderating power" to "determine the proper allocation of powers" of the different branches of government and "to
direct the course of government along constitutional channels" is inherent in all courts as a necessary consequence of the judicial power
itself, which is "the power of the court to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable." As
indicated in Angara v. Electoral Commission, judicial review is indeed an integral component of the delicate system of checks and
balances which, together with the corollary principle of separation of powers, forms the bedrock of our republican form of government
and insures that its vast powers are utilized only for the benefit of the people for which it serves. The separation of powers is a
fundamental principle in our system of government. It obtains not through express provision but by actual division in our Constitution.
Each department of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own sphere.
But it does not follow from the fact that the three powers are to be kept separate and distinct that the Constitution intended them to be
absolutely unrestrained and independent of each other. The Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to
secure coordination in the workings of the various departments of the government. And the judiciary in turn, with the Supreme Court as
the final arbiter, effectively checks the other departments in the exercise of its power to determine the law, and hence to declare
executive and legislative acts void if violative of the Constitution.
The major difference between the judicial power of the Philippine Supreme Court and that of the U.S. Supreme Court is that while the
power of judicial review is only impliedly granted to the U.S. Supreme Court and is discretionary in nature, that granted to the
Philippine Supreme Court and lower courts, as expressly provided for in the Constitution, is not just a power but also a duty, and it was
given an expanded definition to include the power to correct any grave abuse of discretion on the part of any government branch or
instrumentality. There are also glaring distinctions between the U.S. Constitution and the Philippine Constitution with respect to the
power of the House of Representatives over impeachment proceedings. While the U.S. Constitution bestows sole power of
impeachment to the House of Representatives without limitation, our Constitution, though vesting in the House of Representatives the
exclusive power to initiate impeachment cases, provides for several limitations to the exercise of such power as embodied in Section
3(2), (3), (4) and (5), Article XI thereof. These limitations include the manner of filing, required vote to impeach, and the one year bar
on the impeachment of one and the same official. The people expressed their will when they instituted the above-mentioned safeguards
in the Constitution. This shows that the Constitution did not intend to leave the matter of impeachment to the sole discretion of
Congress. Instead, it provided for certain well-defined limits, or "judicially discoverable standards" for determining the validity of the
exercise of such discretion, through the power of judicial review. There is indeed a plethora of cases in which this Court exercised the
power of judicial review over congressional action. Finally, there exists no constitutional basis for the contention that the exercise of
judicial review over impeachment proceedings would upset the system of checks and balances. Verily, the Constitution is to be
interpreted as a whole and "one section is not to be allowed to defeat another." Both are integral components of the calibrated system of
independence and interdependence that insures that no branch of government act beyond the powers assigned to it by the Constitution.
2 of PD No. 755 (and some other PDs) were unconstitutional. The COCOFED representing the over a million coconut farmers via
Petition for review under Rule 45 sought the reversal of the ruling contending among others that the sequestration amounted to taking
of private property without just compensation and impairment of vested right of ownership.
ISSUE: What is the NATURE of the Coconut Levy Fund?
RULING: The SC ruled in favor of the REPUBLIC. To begin with, the Coconut Levy was imposed in the exercise of the States
inherent power of taxation. Indeed, the Coconut Levy Funds partake the nature of TAXES. The Funds were generated by virtue of
statutory enactments by the proper legislative authorities and for public purpose.The Funds were collected to advance the government
avowed policy of protecting the coconut industry. The SC took judicial notice of the fact that the coconut industry is one of the great
economic pillars of our nation, and coconuts and their byproducts occupy a leading position among the countries export
products.Taxation is done not merely to raise revenues to support the government, but also to provide means for the rehabilitation and
the stabilization of a threatened industry ,which is so affected with public interest .