1. ECHEGERAY v. SEC. of JUSTICE the same.

Even after the judgment has become final the court

retains its jurisdiction to execute and enforce it.
[G.R. No. 132601. January 19, 1999] - in the case of Director of Prisons v. Judge of First Instance,[6]
LEO ECHEGARAY, petitioner, vs. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, ET AL.,
viz:
respondents.
"This Supreme Court has repeatedly declared in various
decisions, which constitute jurisprudence on the subject, that in
Facts:
criminal cases, after the sentence has been pronounced and the
- For resolution are public respondents' Urgent Motion for
period for reopening the same has elapsed, the court cannot
Reconsideration of the Resolution of this Court dated January 4,
change or alter its judgment, as its jurisdiction has terminated . .
1999 temporarily restraining the execution of petitioner and . When in cases of appeal or review the cause has been returned
Supplemental Motion to Urgent Motion for Reconsideration. thereto for execution, in the event that the judgment has been
- Public respondents attached a copy of House Resolution No. affirmed, it performs a ministerial duty in issuing the proper
629 introduced by Congressman Golez entitled "Resolution order. But it does not follow from this cessation of functions on
expressing the sense of the House of Representative to reject the part of the court with reference to the ending of the cause
that the judicial authority terminates by having then passed
any move to review Republic Act No. 7659
completely to the Executive. The particulars of the execution
- Petitioner assailed the constitutionality of Lethal Injection law itself, which are certainly not always included in the judgment
and it’s implementing rules and regulation. and writ of execution, in any event are absolutely under the
- Public respondents contend that in issuing the January 4, 1999 control of the judicial authority, while the executive has no
TRO the court has no power to grant such because the case power over the person of the convict except to provide for
having become final and executory, its execution enters the carrying out of the penalty and to pardon.
exclusive ambit of the executive department, thus has no - When in cases of appeal or review the cause has been returned
authority to issue TRO. thereto for execution, in the event that the judgment has been
affirmed, it performs a ministerial duty in issuing the proper
Issue: order. But it does not follow from this cessation of functions on
- WON the TRO issued by the Court has usurped the power of the the part of the court with reference to the ending of the cause
President to grant reprieve under Section 19, Article VII of the that the judicial authority terminates by having then passed
Constitution. completely to the Executive. The particulars of the execution
itself, which are certainly not always included in the judgment
Supreme Court Ruling/ Doctrine Used: and writ of execution, in any event are absolutely under the
control of the judicial authority, while the executive has no
- "The finality of a judgment does not mean that the Court has power over the person of the convict except to provide for
lost all its powers nor the case. By the finality of the judgment, carrying out of the penalty and to pardon.
what the court loses is its jurisdiction to amend, modify or alter - We likewise reject the public respondents' contention that the
"decision in this case having become final and executory, its
 execution enters the exclusive ambit of authority of the oversee the build-operate-transfer implementation of solid waste
executive department x x x. By granting the TRO, the Honorable management projects, headed by the MMDA Chairman and the
Court has in effect granted reprieve which is an executive Cabinet Officer for Regional Development - NCR (CORD-NCR). The
EXECOM was to oversee and develop waste-to-energy projects for the
function."
waste disposal sites in San Mateo, Rizal and Carmona, Cavite under the
- Public respondents cite as their authority for this proposition,
BOT scheme. Under the said scheme, they will try to use incineration
Section 19, Article VII of the Constitution which reads: technology to establish municipal solid waste thermal plants.
"Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise
provided in this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, Eleven (11) proponents submitted their pre-qualification documents,
commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures but most of them failed to comply with the requirements provided
after conviction by final judgment. He shall also have the power under the BOT Law. On July 21, 1995, the Pre-qualification, Bids and
to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the Awards Committee recommended the pre-qualification of three
members of the Congress." proponents: 1) JANCOM International Pty. Ltd.; 2) First Philippine
- for the President to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a International W-E Managers; and 3) PACTECH Development
majority of all the members of the Congress. The provision, Corporation, which was approved by EXECOM. Unfortunately, PACTECH
however, cannot be interpreted as denying the power of withdrew from the bidding while JANCOM and First Philippine
courts to control the enforcement of their decisions after their requested for the extension of time for submission of their bid.
finality. In truth, an accused who has been convicted by final
JANCOM entered into a partnership with Asea Brown Boveri (ABB) to
judgment still possesses collateral rights and these rights can form JANCOM Environmental Corporation, while First Philippine
be claimed in the appropriate courts. formed a partnership with OGDEN. At the second bid conference, the
bid proposals of JANCOM for San Mateo and First Philippine for
2. CONSTANTINO v. CUISA Carmona were found complete and responsive, declaring them winners
3. GUDANI v. SENGA of the bid.
4. GLORIA v CA
5. MIRANDA v. AGUIRRE On February 27, 1997, MMDA Chairman Prospero Oreta informed
JANCOM that PBAC approved the award of the San Mateo Waste-to-
6. MMDA v. JANCOM Energy Project to JANCOM subject to negotiation and mutual approval
of the terms and conditions of the contract of award. After
Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. JANCOM negotiations, a draft BOT contract was prepared and presented to the
Environmental Corporation Presidential Task Force on Solid Waste Management. Then it was
G. R. No. 147465, 30 January 2002 signed between JANCOM and the Philippine Government.
375 SCRA 320
On March 5, 1998, the BOT contract was submitted to President Ramos
Facts: for approval but it was too close to the end of his term which expired
In 1994, then President Fidel V. Ramos issued Presidential without him signing the contract. President Ramos endorsed the
Memorandum Order No. 202 creating the Executive Committee to contract to incoming President Joseph Estrada.
 [1994]), we held that a “final” order or judgment is one which
Upon the start of the Estrada administration, the administration of the “disposes of the whole subject matter or terminates a particular
EXECOM had changed. Congress passed RA 8749, otherwise known as proceeding or action, leaving nothing to be done but to enforce by
the Clean Air Act. President Estrada ordered the closure of the San execution what has been determined.” An order or judgment is
Mateo landfill. Greater Manila Solid Waste Management Committee deemed final when it finally disposes of the pending action so that
adopted a resolution not to pursue the BOT contract with JANCOM. nothing more can be done with it in the trial court. In other words, a
The EXECOM informed JANCOM that the BOT contract would not be final order is that which gives an end to the litigation. A final order or
pursued due to changes in policy and economic environment. JANCOM judgment finally disposes of, adjudicates, or determines the rights, or
appealed to President Estrada the position taken by EXECOM not to some right or rights of the parties, either on the entire controversy or
pursue the contract by reason of its non-implementation. on some definite and separate branch thereof, and concludes them
until it is reversed or set aside. Where no issue is left for future
Despite the pendency of the appeal, MMDA caused the publication in a consideration, except the fact of compliance or non-compliance with
newspaper of an invitation to pre-qualify and to submit proposals for the terms of the judgment or doer, such judgment or order is final and
solid waste management projects for Metro Manila. appealable (Investments, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 147 SCRA 334
[1987]).
JANCOM filed a petition to declare the resolution of the Solid Waste
Management Committee disregarding the BOT contract and the acts of xxx
MMDA calling for bids as unconstitutional. The trial court decided in
favor of JANCOM. Instead of appealing, MMDA filed a special action for Nevertheless, the RTC decision is not immediately executory. Only
certiorari. The trial court ordered the execution of its decision granting judgments in actions for injunction, receivership, accounting and
the petition of JANCOM declaring the BOT contract as invalid. The support and such other judgments as are now or may hereafter be
Court of Appeals dismissed MMDA's special action for certiorari. declared to be immediately executory shall be enforced after their
rendition and shall not be stayed by an appeal therefrom, unless
Issue: Whether or not the decision of the lower court regarding the otherwise ordered by the trial court (Sec. 4, rule 39, id.).
validity of the BOT contract is final.
Q: Distinguish appeal from special civil action for certiorari.
Held:
Yes. An appeal is a remedy in which the appellant questions the court
There can be no dispute that the trial court’s May 29, 2000 decision decision based on the judgment while a special civil action for certiorari
was a final order or judgment which MMDA should have appealed, had is a provisional remedy in which the appellant questions the court
it been so minded. In its decision, the trial court disposed of the main decision based on its jurisdiction over the case.
controversy by “declaring the Resolution of respondent Greater
Metropolitan Manila Solid Waste Management Committee disregarding 7. TIROL v. CA
petitioner’s BOT Award Contract and calling for bids for and authorizing
a new contract for the Metro Manila waste management ILLEGAL and GR 133954, August 3, 2000
VOID.” This ruling completely disposed of the controversy between Victoriano B. Tirol (Petitioner)
MMDA and JANCOM. In BA Finance Corporation vs. CA (229 SCRA 5667 Commission on Audit (Respondent)
 matters falling within his jurisdiction.
Facts:
Victoria B. Tirol was then the Regional Director of the Department of A meticulous review and re-evaluation of the pleadings in this case leads the
Education Culture and Sports (DECS now DepEd) of Region VIII. He and some Court to a conclusion unfavourable for the petitioner. Under Section 3 of R.A.
officials of the Lalawigan National HighSchool, Lalawigan, Borongan Eastern No. 3019:
Samar, entered into a contract for the procurement of various school Corrupt Practices of Public Officers – In addition to acts or omissions
equipment, which were alleged to be grossly disadvantageous to the of public officials already penalized by existing law, the following shall
government. The school’s Teachers and Employees Union filed a complaint constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby
against Tirol and other school officials for the overpricing during the purchase declared to be unlawful:
of said school equipment. (g) Entering into a contract or transaction manifestly and
gross disadvantageous to the government.
On the other hand, due to the strength of the complaint, Region VIII COA
audited the operations and accounts of the Lalawigan National High School. The Office of the Ombudsman included Tirol as a respondent because of his
COA found that there was a malversation of public funds which cited the said participation in approving of the Voucher and issuing of the check. These
purchase resulting in an overprice of P35,000. Per COA Circular, a competitive matters of evidence are to be weighted and appreciated by the
public bidding should take place for purchase of supplies, materials and Sandiganbayan, which has the original exclusive jurisdiction over the case.
equipment in excess of P50,000. The said procurement amounted to P80,000
and no bidding took place. As a result, COA recommended the filing of both Question of Law – when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is
criminal and administrative case against the persons liable therefor. on a certain state of facts.
Question of Facts – when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or
After a thorough review of the Visayas-Ombudsman, a criminal case was filed falsehood of alleged facts.
in the Sandiganbayan against Tirol and his co-officials. During the pendency of
the criminal proceeding, petitioner filed this petition for review on certiorari Petition for CERTIORARI Denied while Resolution and Order of the
(under Sec. 27 of R.A. No. 6770 “Ombudsman Act of 1989” and in violation of Ombudsman AFFIRMED.
Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019). The Sandiganbayan still ruled against the
petitioner and two other co-respondent despite the pendency of the instant 8. CRUZ v. DENR
petition. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was dismissed for
lack of merit. Consequently, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under FACTS:
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court in the case “Tirol v. SandiganBayan” docketed as Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition
G.R. No. 135913. and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality
of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the
Issue: Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its implementing
Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman erred in concluding that Tirol rules and regulations (IRR). The petitioners assail certain provisions of
was culpably liable for the overpricing on the purchase of school equipment.
the IPRA and its IRR on the ground that these amount to an unlawful
deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the public domain as
Held:
well as minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation of the
It is beyond the ambit of the Court’s authority to review the power of the
Ombudsman in prosecuting or dismissing a complaint filed before it. The
Regalian doctrine embodied in section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.
Ombudsman is constitutionally mandated to investigate and prosecute
ISSUE:
Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution? Sometime in February 1981, private respondents Godofredo De la Paz
and his sister Manuela De la Paz, married to Maximo Hipolito, entered
HELD: into an oral contract with petitioner Rev. Fr. Dante Martinez, then
No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. Assistant parish priest of Cabanatuan City, for the sale of Lot No. 1337-
Examining the IPRA, there is nothing in the law that grants to the A-3 at the Villa Fe Subdivision in Cabanatuan City for the sum of
ICCs/IPs ownership over the natural resources within their ancestral P15,000.00. It was agreed that petitioner would give a downpayment of
domain. Ownership over the natural resources in the ancestral domains P3,000.00 to private respondents De la Paz and that the balance would
remains with the State and the rights granted by the IPRA to the be payable by installment. After giving the P3,000.00 downpayment,
ICCs/IPs over the natural resources in their ancestral domains merely petitioner started the construction of a house on the lot On January 31,
gives them, as owners and occupants of the land on which the 1983, petitioner completed payment of the lot for which private
resources are found, the right to the small scale utilization of these respondents De la Paz executed two documents (giving of the deed of
resources, and at the same time, a priority in their large scale sale & signing the deed of sale). However, private respondents De la Paz
development and exploitation. never delivered the Deed of Sale they promised to petitioner. 

Additionally, ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part of the In the meantime, in a Deed of. Absolute Sale with Right to Repurchase
lands of the public domain. They are private lands and belong to the dated October 28, 1981 (Exh. 10), private respondents De la Paz sold
ICCs/IPs by native title, which is a concept of private land title that three lots with right to repurchase the same within one year to private
existed irrespective of any royal grant from the State. However, the respondents spouses Reynaldo and Susan Veneracion for the sum of
right of ownership and possession by the ICCs/IPs of their ancestral P150,000.00. One of the lots sold was the lot previously sold to
domains is a limited form of ownership and does not include the right petitioner.
to alienate the same.
Petitioner discovered that the lot he was occupying with his family had
9. MARTINEZ v. CA been sold to the spouses Veneracion after receiving a letter, (Exh.
P/Exh. 6-Veneracion) from private respondent Reynaldo Veneracion on
FACTS: This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision March 19, 1986, claiming ownership of the land and demanding that
of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decisions of the they vacate the property and remove their improvements thereon. On
Regional Trial Court, Branches 25 and 28, Cabanatuan City, May 12, 1986, private respondent Reynaldo Veneracion brought an
finding private respondents spouses Reynaldo and Susan action for ejectment in the Municipal Trial Court, Branch III, Cabanatuan
Veneracion owners of the land in dispute, subject to petitioner's City against petitioner and his mother (Exh. 14). On the other hand, on
rights as a builder in good faith. June 10, 1986, petitioner caused a notice of lis pendens to be recorded
on TCT No. T-44612 with the Register of Deeds of Cabanatuan City (Exh.
U). The MTC ruled in favor of the petitioner, but since the main issue is
ownership, the better remedy of the plaintiff [herein private
respondents Veneracion] is Accion Publiciana in the Regional Trial
Court, having jurisdiction to adjudicate on ownership.
On February 20, 1991, the Regional Trial Court rendered its decision Second. In this case, the Court of Appeals based its ruling that private
finding private respondents Veneracion as the true owners of the lot in respondents Veneracion are the owners of the disputed lot on their
dispute On March 20, 1991, petitioner then filed a petition for review reliance on private respondent Godofredo De la Paz's assurance that he
with the Court of Appeals of the RTC's decision in Civil Case No. 670-AF would take care of the matter concerning petitioner's occupancy of the
(for ejectment). Likewise, on April 2, 1991, petitioner appealed the trial disputed lot as constituting good faith. This case, however, involves
court's decision in Civil Case No. 44-[AF]-8642-R (for annulment of sale double sale and, on this matter, Art. 1544 of the Civil Code provides
and damages) to the Court of Appeals.   The CA declared the that where immovable property is the subject of a double sale,
Veneracions to be owners of the lot in dispute as they were the first ownership shall be transferred (1) to the person acquiring it who in
registrants in good faith, in accordance with Art. 1544 of the Civil Code. good faith first recorded it to the Registry of Property; (2) in default
thereof, to the person who in good faith was first in possession; and (3)
ISSUES: in default thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title. The
requirement of the law, where title to the property is recorded in the
1. Whether or not the resolution of the Court of Appeals denying Register of Deeds, is two-fold: acquisition in good faith and recording in
petitioner's motion for reconsideration is contrary to the constitutional good faith. To be entitled to priority, the second purchaser must not
requirement that a denial of a motion for reconsideration must state only prove prior recording of his title but that he acted in good
the legal reasons on which it is based. faith, i.e., without knowledge or notice of a prior sale to another. The
presence of good faith should be ascertained from the circumstances
2. Whether or not private respondents Veneracion are buyers in good surrounding the purchase of the land.
faith of the lot in dispute as to make them the absolute owners thereof
in accordance with Art. 1544 of the Civil Code on double sale of As early as October, 1981, private respondents Veneracion already
immovable property. knew that there was construction being made on the property they
purchased. The fact that there are persons, other than the vendors, in
HELD: actual possession of the disputed lot should have put private
respondents on inquiry as to the nature of petitioner's right over the
First. This contention is without merit. property. But he never talked to petitioner to verify the nature of his
Art. VIII, Sec. 14 of the Constitution provides that "No petition for right. He merely relied on the assurance of private respondent
review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall Godofredo De la Paz, who was not even the owner of the lot in
be refused due course or denied without stating the basis therefor." question, that he would take care of the matter. This does not meet the
This requirement was fully complied with when the Court of Appeals, in standard of good faith. 
denying reconsideration of its decision, stated in its resolution that it
found no reason to change its ruling because petitioner had not raised Art. 1357 and Art. 1358, in relation to Art. 1403(2) of the Civil Code,
anything new. requires that the sale of real property must be in writing for it to be
enforceable. It need not be notarized. If the sale has not been put in
writing, either of the contracting parties can compel the other to
observe such requirement. This is what petitioner did when he
repeatedly demanded that a Deed of Absolute Sale be executed in his
favor by private respondents De la Paz.
 exercise of the power vested in the BP to reorganize the judiciary, the
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED. Father allegation of the absence good faith as well as the attack on the
Martinez is the buyer in good faith. independence of the Judiciary being unwarranted and devoid of any
support in law. A Supplemental Answer was likewise filed on
10. AGUIRRE v. RANA, BAR MATTER No. 491 08/10/1981, followed by a Reply of PETITIONERS on 13/10. After the
11. IN RE: IBP ELECTIONS BAR MATTER NO. 491 hearing on 15/10, in which not only petitioners and respondents were
12. DE LA LLANA v. ALBA heard through counsel but also the amici curiae, and thereafter
submission of the minutes of the proceeding in the debate on BP129,
This case is about the crucial issue of the constitutionality of Batas this petition was deemed submitted for decision.
Pambansa Blg. 129, entitled as “An Act Reorganizing the Judiciary,
Appropriating Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes.” Such issue rose The question on the amount of efforts to study the legal aspects of the
from the possible collision of legislative power and the task of judicial case was also raised. And after such exhaustive deliberation, the
review that is judicial reorganization, as protected by our Constitution, exchange of views supplemented by memoranda from the members of
it provided that: “The members of the SC and the judges of inferior the courts, it is held that BP 129 is CONSTITUTIONAL
courts shall hold office during good behavior until age 70 or
incapacitated to discharge their duties. The SC shall have power to This was resolved by the Court is this manner:
discipline judges of inferior courts by a vote of at least 8 members to
st
order their dismissal.” For the assailed legislation (BP129) mandates 1 : the question of standing was placed in order. As far as Judge de la
that justices and judges of inferior courts from CA to municipal circuit Llana is concerned, he certainly falls within the principle set forth in
courts except SB and CTA, unless appointed to the inferior courts People v. Vera Thus: “The unchallenged rule is that the person who
established by such act, would be considered SEPARATED from the impugns the validity of the statute must have a personal and
Judiciary. It is the termination of their incumbency that the Petitioners substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will
justifies a suit of this character, it being alleged that thereby the sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement.” With respect to the
security of tenure provision of the Constitution has been ignored and other petitioners being members of the bar, they also possess standing,
disregarded. such was attacked by saying that this is a public right and not right as
their own as an individual, such view is an inhibition to parties intent on
The fundamental issue raised in this proceeding, was erroneously keeping public officials staying on the path of constitutionalism.
entitled Petition of Declaratory relief and/or for Prohibition considered Moreover as taxpayers, this was amply demonstrated as well.
by this Court as an action for Prohibition, seeking to enjoin the
Respondents from taking any action in the implementation of BP129.
The Petitioners sought to bolster their claim by imputing lacking of
good faith in the enactment and characterized it as an undue nd
2 : The imputation of arbitrariness to the legislative body in enacting
delegation of legislative power to the President, granting the Pres.
BP129 to demonstrate LACK OF GOOD FAITH DOES manifest violence to
Authority to fix the compensation and allowances of justices and judges
the facts. The ANTECEDENT FACTS AS FOLLOWS:
thereafter appointed the determination of the date when the
reorganization shall be deemed completed. In SolGen Estelito P. On 07/08/80 Presi. Committee on Judicial Reorganization was
Mendoza’s response, he pointed out that there is no valid justification organized. EO creating it was later amended by EO 619-A, specifying
for the attack on the constitutionality of this statute, as it is a legitimate
the task of the Committee which is to: “formulate plans on the Thereafter it was submitted to the BP to be approved. Moreover, some
reorganization of the Judiciary which shall be submitted within 70DAYS amendments to the bill were adopted by the Committee on Justice,
from 07/08/80, to PROVIDE THE PRESIDENT sufficient options for the Human rights and good Government (Committee), during the
reorganization of the entire Judiciary which shall embrace all lower sponsorship speech of Minister Puno, he recognized that the CB42
courts, including CA,CFI, the City and Municipal Courts, and all Sp. would result in the attainment of more efficiency in the disposal of
Courts, except SB.” cases and the improvement of the quality of justice, such
reorganization designated to suit the court system of the exigencies of
On 17/10/80, A report was submitted by such committee presenting the present day and the foreseeable future.
that: “there are problems, both GRAVE AND PRESSING THAT CALL FOR
REMEDIAL MEASURES.” Specifically attacking the improved court In the answer to the arbitrariness of its enactment, it must be observed
management and training of judges to be insufficient; and the vital that BP has 590 pages devoted to its discussion. With such background,
concern is the problem of clogged dockets, it admits that it would take it becomes obvious how lacking in factual basis in the allegation that its
much effort and would result in potential problems due to the enactment is tainted with vice of arbitrariness. There is good faith from
complexity and delicacy of the task of reorganization, but it will be its inception to the affixing of the Presidential signature.
fruitful for the economy of the country and to be able to implement
social justice in narrowing the wealth and the poor elements, thus rd
3 : Abolition of an office within the competence of a legitimate body if
delay could be expected and that is enough to push judicial done in GOOD FAITH SUFFERS FROM NO INFIRMITY. Certain points are
reorganization, the BP had no choice. It had to act, before the ailment presented to fortify this argument:“Valid abolition of offices is neither
became worse. removal nor separation of the incumbents and, if the abolition is void,
the incumbent is deemed never to have ceased to hold office.”
It also stated that there is no denying the need for the reform as
Abolition of an office does not amount to illegal removal of its
observed in the previous generations, significant amendments have
incumbent, in order to be valid, the abolition must be made in good
been made to the judiciary Act of 1901. This was uniformly the
faith.
expansion of the jurisdiction and members of the Courts, to keep up
with the growing economy and population of the country. The test remains whether the ABOLITION IS IN GOOD FAITH. Such
element is present in the enactment of BP129: it is answered in this
After submission of such report Cabinet Bill 42, which later became the
manner: citing Justice Laurel separation opinion in Zandueta v. De la
basis of BP129 was introduced. Its explanatory note is as follows:
Costa: “affirming that in no uncertain terms the standard of good faith
“Pursuant to the President’s instructions, the proposed legislation has
as the test of validity of an act abolishing an inferior court, and this too
been drafted in accordance with guidelines of that report with
with due recognition of the security of tenure guarantee.”
particular attention to certain objectives of the reorganization, to wit,
the attainment of more efficiency in the disposal of cases, a The principles embodied in Sec. 2(reorganization by the legislature) and
reallocation of jurisdiction, and a revision of procedures. In 9(security of tenure by judges) of Art VIII must be coordinated and
consultation with the governmental and parliamentary leadership, it harmonized.
was felt that some options in the report be not availed of and preferred
an innovation. (i.e. intermediate appellate court merely appellate The particular point here discussed the purpose of fulfillment of what
adjudication, the preference has been opted to increase is jurisdiction was considered a great public need by the legislative department and
to help the SC effectively.) that of Commonwealth Act 145 (in present case BP129) was not
enacted purposefuly to affect adversely the tenure of judges. The said provision gave rise to the Court to inquire further in the
allegation that the security of tenure is endangered. Once again, the
There was greater necessity of reorganization consequent upon the principle of separation of powers (Angara v. Electoral Commission)
establishment of the new government. “Doubt is should be resolved in “obtains not through express provision but by actual division.”
favor of the valid exercise of the legislative power.”
BP retains its full authority to enact whatever legislation may be
Lastly on the question of abolition, on the reorganization, there was no necessary to carry out national policy as usually formulated in a caucus
fact of abolition, the mere creation of an entirely new district of the of the majority party, it is understandable then why in Fortun v, Labang
same court is valid and constitutional, such flowing from the it is stressed that with the provision transferring to the SC
fundamental proposition that the legislature may abolish inferior administrative supervision of the Judiciary, there is a greater need to
courts and therefor reorganize them territorialy or otherwise preserve unimpaired the independence of the judiciary, especially so at
necessitating new appointments and commissions. present, where to all intents and purposes there is a fusion between
the executive and the legislative branches.
Here the challenged statute creates an intermediate appellate court,
regional trial courts, metropolitan trial courts of the national capital th
region, and other metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts in 5 : abolition of existing inferior courts collides with the security of
cities, as well as in municipalities, and municipal circuit trial courts. tenure enjoyed by incumbent justices and judges under Art X Scc 7 of
There is even less reason to doubt the fact that the existing inferior the Consti. The court is empowered “to discipline judges of inferior
courts were abolished, as such establishment according to the BP is the courts and, by a vote of at least 8 members order their dismissal.”
appropriate response to the grave and urgent problems. Under the Judiciary Act, it was the President who has vested with such
power. Removal is of course distinguished from termination by virtue
Petitioners thus fail to prove that the BP129 is not within the bounds of of abolition of office. There can be no tenure to a non-existent office.
th After the abolition, there is in law no occupant. In case of Removal,
legislative authority.4 : the implementation of BP129 task on the there is an office with an occupant who loses his position. In that sense,
Executive may give rise to question affecting a judiciary should be kept the security of tenure is not impaired. No question of law is involved.
independent. The scope concerning all inferior courts except CTA and Neither is there any intrusion into who shall be appointed to the vacant
SB gave rise to such question. positions created by the reorganization.That remains in the Executive.
No departure from judicial power. Thus BP 129 could stand the most
"The provisions of this Act shall be immediately carried out in
rigorous test of constitutionality.
accordance with an Executive Order to be issued by the President. The
Court of Appeals, the Courts of First Instance, the Circuit Criminal th
Courts, the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts, the Courts of 6 : Reconciliation of constitutional provisions.BP expressly vested with
Agrarian Relations, the City Courts, the Municipal Courts, and the the authority to reorganize inferior courts and in the process abolish
Municipal Circuit Courts shall continue to function as presently existing ones, a power that is now vested in this tribunal.
constituted and organized, until the completion of the reorganization
provided in this Act as declared by the President. Upon such Citing Angara decision, “the Constitution has blocked out with deft
declaration, the said courts shall be deemed automatically abolished strokes and in bold lines, allotment of power to the executive, the
and the incumbents thereof shall cease to hold office." legislative and the judicial departments of the government, the
overlapping and interlacing of functions and duties between the several The petitioners objection based in the statute refer to as “definite time
departments, however, sometimes makes it hard to say just where the frame limitation.” Bereft of merit.
one leaves off and the other begins”
They ignore the categorical language of this provision: The SC shall
It is to be avoided to harmonize the provisions in question, there could submit to the president within 30 days from the date of the effectivity
be a case of power against power. of this act, a staffing pattern for all courts constituted pursuant to this
Act which shall be the basis of the implementing order to be issued by
th st
7 : undue delegation of legislative power to the President, the grant the President. The 1 sentence of next section is even more
of authority to fix the compensation and the allowances of the Justices categorical. “The provisions of this act shall be immediately carried out
and judges thereafter appointed. in accordance with an EO”. Certainly, the petitioners cannot be heard
to argue that the President is insensible to his constitutional duty to
The language is clear “Intermediate Appellate Justices, Regional Trial take care that laws be faithfully executed.
Judges, and Municipal Circuit Trial Judges shall receive such
compensation and allowances as may be authorized by the President While the existing lower courts continue functioning, until the
along the guidelines set forth in letter of Implementation No. 93 completion of the reorganization act as declared by the president.
pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 985, as amended by Presidential Upon such declaration, the said courts shall be deemed
Decree No. 1597." There exist a standard. AUTOMATICALLY ABOLISHED and the incumbents thereof shall CEASE
to hold office. It is clear.
The test of completeness underlying in the doctrine of non-delegation
must be invoked. No fear need be entertained by incumbents whose length of service,
quality of performane and clean record justify their being named anew.
"To avoid the taint of unlawful delegation, there must be a standard,
which implies at the very least that the legislature itself determines It is without interruption in the continuity of their service. It is a
matters of principle and lays down fundamental policy. Otherwise, the reaffirmation of the good faith that will characterize the
charge of complete abdication may be hard to repel. A standard thus implementation by the Executive.
defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries and
specifies the public agency to apply it. It indicates the circumstances th
8 : On 08/09/81, morning of the hearing, Petitioners sought to have
under which the legislative command is to be effected. It is the
the writer of this opinion and Justices Ramon C. Aquino and Ameurfina
criterion by which legislative purpose may be carried out. Thereafter,
Melencio-Herrera DISQUALIFIED because the first was named chairman
the executive or administrative office designated may in pursuance of
and the other two, members of the Committee on Judicial
the above guidelines promulgate supplemental rules and regulations.
Reorganization.
The standard may be either express or implied. If the former, the non-
delegation objection is easily met. The standard though does not have Such motion was denied. It was made clear that not one of the 3
to be spelled out specifically. It could be implied from the policy and members had any hand in framing BP 129.They were not consulted.
purpose of the act considered as a whole." They did not testify. The challenged legislation is entirely the product of
the legislative body.
- Edu v. Ericta -
Their work was limited, set forth in the EO, to submit alternative plans
for reorganization. This work is more in the nature of scholarly studies. administration of justice.

th It does not follow that abolition of good faith of the existing inferior
9 : Cardinal article of faith. It is the people who are endowed with
courts and creation of new ones will result in a judiciary unable to
rights, to secure which a government is instituted. Acting as it does
discharge with independence its solemn duty. Nor fear that less than
through public officials, who exercise certain powers for the benefit of
good faith will attend the exercise of the appointing power.
the body politic. As laid down by our constitution “A PUBLIC OFFICE IS A
PUBLIC TRUST” It is a legal imperative. It is to be viewed that the 3 departments as one in their determination
to pursue the ideals and aspirations and to fulfill the hopes of the
A public official is vested with certain rights to enable them to perform
sovereign people as expressed in the constitution.
his functions and fulfill his responsibilities more efficiently. From that
standpoint, the security of tenure provision to assure judicial 13. CAYETANO v MONSOD
independence is to be viewed. 14. GAMINDE v COA
15. BRILLANTES v YORAC
It is an added guarantee that justices and judges can administer justice
[G.R. No. 93867 : December 18, 1990.] SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR.,
undeterred by any neither fear nor reprisal. Their judgments to be Petitioner, vs. HAYDEE B. YORAC, in her capacity as ACTING
inspired solely on their knowledge of the law and dictates of their CHAIRPERSON of the COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
conscience, free from unworthy motives and corrupting influence. The
independence of which they are assured is not solely for their welfare. Facts: Pres. Aquino created a fact-finding commission in relation
to a coup attempt in 1989. The chairman of the said fact-finding
The challenged legislation was subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny,. commission was Hilario Davide, then chairman of the COMELEC.
Because he had to vacate his position, Pres. Aquino appointed
The judges may be guaranteed a fixed tenure of office during good
Haydee Yorac, who was an associate COMELEC commissioner
behavior, but it allows them to be subservient to one administration to
during that time, to be a temporary substitute. She was
another, the independence of the judiciary will be nothing more than appointed in an acting capacity, which was opposed by Sixto
an empty ideal. Brillantes Jr. His contention is that under Art. X par. C of the
Constitution, it states that in no case shall any member of the
Our judges are those who would not just blindly obey the King’s order
COMELEC be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting
but “will do what becomes him as a judge.” capacity. He also adds that the act of choosing the temporary
chairman is supposed to be decided by the members of the
Good judges with “men who have mastery of the principles of law, who
COMELEC, and as such, the independence of the COMELEC as a
discharge their duties in accordance with law, who are permitted to
constitutional commission was violated by the president when
perform the duties of the office undeterred by outside influence, and
she appointed Haydee Yorac.
who are independent and self-respecting human unit in a judicial
system equal and coordinate to the other two departments of Issues: Did the president committed a violation of the
government.” constitutional independence of the COMELEC in her act of
appointing a temporary chairman? Was the appointment
There is no reason to assume that the failure of this suit to annul BP129 constitutional?
would be attended with deleterious consequences to the
 Ruling: Yes. The president violated the constitutional motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the
independence of the COMELEC when she appointed Hayde Yorac Commission en banc.
as the temporary chairman. Consequently apoointment made by
the president is unconstitutional. As a rule, the three ISSUE:
constitutional commissions are essentially executive in nature. WON COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion.
However, these constitutional commissions are not under the
control of the president. The appointment made by the president HELD:
in this case that was based on administrative expediency, but
such was not grounded on any statutory provision, much less Yes.
the constitution. Art. X par. C of the constitution provides that
"In no case shall any member of the COMELEC be appointed or
SC ruled that the COMELEC en banc acted without jurisdiction, or with
designated in a temporary or acting capacity”. The members of
abuse of discretion, when it resolved the appeals of petitioners in the
the COMELEC are the ones who have the choice whom to sit as
abovementioned SPECIAL CASES without first referring the to any of its
acting chairman. In practice, the most senior member of the
Divisions. Said resolutions are null and void and must be set aside.
COMELC is the one chosen. The principle is that the constitutional
Consequently, the appeals are deemed pending before the Commission
commissions are independent bodies, and as such should be given
for proper referral to a division.
the liberty to choose who their chairman.
16. CSC v DBM
18. AMBIL v COMELEC
19. CAMPOREDONDO v NLRC
20. GENERAL v ROCO
17. SARMIENTO v COMELEC
21. CSC v SALAS
22. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v CSC
FACTS:
23. VISTAN v NICOLAS
This case is a special civil actions for certiorari seek to set aside the
Resolution of COMELEC in the following Special Cases: GR No. 1056278,
FACTS:
GR No. 105725, GR No. 105727, GR No. 105730, GR No. 105771, GR No.
Leonila A. Vistan – Complainant
105778, GR No. 105797, GR No. 105919 and GR No. 105977. These
Ruben T. Nicolas (Municipal Trial Court Judge of Pandi Bulacan) –
cases, as argued by the Petitioners, were issued with grave abuse of Respondent
discretion because COMELEC en banc took cognizance and decided the These were consolidated cases brought by the same
appeals without referring first to any of its division. SEC. 3 complainant, Leonila A. Vistan, against Judge Ruben T. Nicolas, then
SUBDIVISION C, ARTICLE IX OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTIO expressly MTC Judge of Pandi Bulacan.
provides: The first was an administrative matter docketed as A.M. No.
MTJ -87-79 filed on March 1987. The complainant alleged that
Sec. 3. The Commission of Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, respondent, as then MTC Judge of Guiguinto, Bulacan rendered a
and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite decision in a criminal case “People v. Narciso Paloma” for Forcible
disposition of election cases, including pre-election controversies. All Abduction with consent, acquitting the accused without first ruling
such election cases shall be heard and decided in division provided that on the accused written offer of evidence. It manifested respondent’s
gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of authority and any election except to vote nor shall he use his official
discretion. authority or influence to coerce the political activity of
Further, complainant stated that Judge Nicolas was any other person or body.
maintaining an illicit relationship with a woman not his wife and
with whom he has a child. Rule 5.10, Canon 5, Code of Judicial Conduct:
A.M. No. MTJ-87-79 was initially dismissed for being moot
and academic as respondent resigned from service when he became A judge is entitled to entertain personal views on
a congressional candidate in the 1987 election which unfortunately political question. But to avoid suspicion of political
he did not won. However, respondent was re-appointed as MTC partisanship, a judge shall not make political speeches,
Judge of Pandi, Bulacan. contribute to party fund, publicly endorse candidates for
The immorality charge was referred to the Regional Trial political office or participate in other partisan political
Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan while the gross ignorance of the activities.
law and grave abuse of authority and discretion was referred to the
office of the Court Administrator (OCA). For having held himself out as a congressional candidate
The second case A.C. No. 3040, for disbarment was filed on while still a member of the bench, he took advantage of
May 1987, sets forth basically the same charges except for the his position to boost his candidacy, demeaned the stature
violation of election laws. It arises when Judge Nicolas while still the of his office, and must be pronounced guilty of gross
MTC Judge of Guiguinto, Bulacan and before the start of the misconduct.
campaign period set by the COMELEC, started circulating
handbills/letters indicating his intention to run for a congressional II. Judge Nicolas on acquitting the accused despite that he
seat. had not yet ruled on the accused written offer of
ISSUES: evidence, thereby depriving the prosecution of the
I. Whether or not Judge Nicolas is guilty for violation of
opportunity to present rebuttal evidence, deciding the
election laws.
case prematurely, and exhibiting gross ignorance of the
II. Whether or not respondent Judge is guilty for gross
law, the Court impose a fine of 3,000. Reduced to 2,000
ignorance of the law and grave abuse of authority and
upon motion for reconsideration.
discretion.
III. Whether or not Judge Nicolas was guilty of immorality. III. (Additional Facts)
HELD:
I. Yes, Judge Nicolas was guilty for violation of election With the knowledge of the death of Angelita de Castro,
the paramour, and disappearance of the two material
laws.
witness. RTC Judge recommends to dismiss since the
evidence submitted was not sufficient to hold respondent
Section 45 of Presidential Decree No. 87 (Civil Service administratively liable for immorality. However, OCA
Law) clearly states: came up recommending that the proper penalty be meted
No officer or employee in the Civil Service including against respondent.
members of the Armed Forces, shall engage directly or
indirectly in any partisan political activity or take part in
Faced with contradicting recommendation, the Court In fact, moral integrity is more than a virtue; it is a
returned the case back to OCA with the assistance of necessity in the judiciary.
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for further WHEREFORE, prayer for DISBARMENT is DENIED;
investigation. severely censored for his gross misconduct in holding
himself out as a candidate for an elective office while still
The NBI report contains: a member of the bench.
- The two material witnesses was found and executed a For the administrative matter, DISMISSED from service,
sworn statement that they personally know Judge with prejudice to re-employment in any branch, agency
Nicolas and his paramour since they were their or instrumentality of the government including
government owned or controlled corporations, and with
neighbors. Their disappearance was due to the
forfeiture of all his accrued retirement benefits and leave
harassment of alleged henchman of Judge Nicolas. credits.
- With regard the murder of the paramour, one of the
three suspects was arrested and admitted that the 24. DOMINGO v ZAMORA
legal children of the respondent as well as the two
other suspects planned the killing. FACTS:
- The NBI has reason to believe that Judge Nicolas and On March 5, 1999, former President Joseph E. Estrada issued Executive
his children orchestrated the death of his paramour. Order (EO) No. 81 entitled "Transferring the Sports Programs and
Activities of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports to the
Immorality does involve grave misconduct and the NBI Philippine Sports Commission and Defining the Role of DECS in School-
has prima facia proof that the charge is true. Based Sports."
The Executive Judge of the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan
aligned its recommendation with OCA that the proper Pursuant to EO 81, former DECS Secretary Andrew B. Gonzales issued
penalty be meted against respondent. Memorandum No. 01592 on January 10, 2000. Memorandum No.
(SC ruling) 01592 temporarily reassigned, in the exigency of the service, all
The Supreme Court agreed with the recommendation of remaining Bureau of Physical Education and School Sports (BPESS) Staff
RTC and OCA. to other divisions or bureaus of the DECS effective March 15, 2000.
A Judge’s official conduct should be free from impropriety
or any appearance thereof. His personal behavior in the On January 21, 2000, Secretary Gonzales issued Memorandum No.
performance of official duty, as well as everyday life, 01594 reassigning the BPESS of staff named in the Memorandum to
should be beyond reproach. various offices within the DECS effective March 15, 2000. Petitioners
High ethical principles and sense of propriety should be were among the BPESS personnel affected by Memorandum No.
maintained, without which the faith of the people in the 01594. Dissatisfied with their reassignment, petitioners filed the instant
judiciary so indispensable in an orderly society cannot be
petition.
preserved.
There is no place in the judiciary for those who cannot
During the pendency of the case, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9155,
meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and
otherwise known as the "Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001",
integrity.
was enacted on August 11, 2001. RA 9155 expressly abolished the
BPESS and transferred the functions, programs and activities of the (3) Transfer any agency under the Office of the President to any other
DECS relating to sports competition to the PSC. department or agency as well as transfer agencies to the Office of the
President from other Departments or Agencies.
ISSUES:
Whether EO 81 and the DECS Memoranda are valid. Since EO 81 is based on the President's continuing authority under
Section 31 (2) and (3) of EO 292, EO 81 is a valid exercise of the
HELD: President's delegated power to reorganize the Office of the President.
The instant petition is DISMISSED for being moot and academic. No The law grants the President this power in recognition of the recurring
pronouncement as to costs. need of every President to reorganize his office "to achieve simplicity,
economy and efficiency."
The subsequent enactment of RA 9155 has rendered the issues in the
present case moot and academic. Since RA 9155 abolished the BPESS Petitioners' contention that the DECS is not part of the Office of the
and transferred the DECS' functions relating to sports competition to President is immaterial. Under EO 292, the DECS is indisputably a
the PSC, petitioners now admit that "it is no longer plausible to raise Department of the Executive Branch. Even if the DECS is not part of
any ultra vires assumption by the PSC of the functions of the BPESS." the Office of the President, Section 31 (2) and (3) of EO 292 clearly
authorizes the President to transfer any function or agency of the DECS
Although the issue is already academic, its significance constrains the to the Office of the President. Under its charter, the PSC is attached to
Court to point out that Executive Order No. 292 ("EO 292" for brevity), the Office of the President. Therefore, the President has the authority
otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987, expressly grants to transfer the "functions, programs and activities of DECS related to
the President continuing authority to reorganize the Office of the sports development" to the PSC, making EO 81 a valid presidential
President. issuance.

Section 31 of EO 292 provides: This distinction is crucial as it affects the security of tenure of
Continuing Authority of the President to Reorganize his Office. - The employees. The abolition of an office in good faith necessarily results in
President, subject to the policy in the Executive Office and in order to the employee's cessation in office, but in such event there is no
achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency, shall have continuing dismissal or separation because the office itself ceases to exist. On the
authority to reorganize the administrative structure of the Office of the other hand, the transfer of functions or agencies does not result in the
President. For this purpose, he may take any of the following actions: employee's cessation in office because his office continues to exist
(1) Restructure the internal organization of the Office of the President although in another department, agency or office. In the instant case,
Proper, including the immediate Offices, the Presidential Special the BPESS employees who were not transferred to PSC were at first
Assistants/Advisers System and the Common Support System, by temporarily, then later permanently reassigned to other offices of the
abolishing, consolidating or merging units thereof or transferring DECS, ensuring their continued employment. At any rate, RA 9155
functions from one unit to another; now mandates that these employees "shall be retained by the
(2) Transfer any function under the Office of the President to any Department."
other Department or Agency as well as transfer functions to the Office
of the President from other Departments and Agencies; and 25. OP v BUENAOBRA
Procedural History: of a non- career service position, could be removed from the service at
This petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court the pleasure of the President
assails the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed and
set aside petitioner's Resolutions dismissing respondent Nita P. Answer:
Buenaobra from the service. No, her removal from office is not at the pleasure of the
President. A non-career service personnel enjoy security of tenure.
Statement of Facts:
The Office of the Ombudsman filed a case against respondent Reasoning:
Nita P. Buenaobra, Chairman of the Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino (KWF), Republic Act No. 7104 creating the KWF provides for 11
with the Sandiganbayan for allegedly causing undue injury to the commissioners to be headed by a chairman and all appointed by the
government through gross inexcusable negligence in connection with President, where it also says, the chairman shall serve full-time for a
the unauthorized reprinting of a dictionary. term of seven years.
Upon respondent's motion, a reinvestigation was held, where
Under Section 6, Article IV, of Presidential Decree No. 807, or
the Ombudsman approved the withdrawal of the case filed against
the Civil Service Decree, it describes a non-career service employee or
respondent. officer has a tenure which is limited to a period specified by law.
Apparently, the Presidential Anti- Graft Commission (PAGC)
conducted a parallel administrative investigation ("the admin case") The Non-Career Service shall include:
against respondent charging her with the same acts and omissions. Chairman and members of commissions and boards with fixed
Respondent was charged with giving unwarranted benefits to Merylvin terms of office and their personal or confidential staff;
Publishing House, Inc., through gross inexcusable negligence in not
taking legal action to collect the 15% royalty fee approved by the KWF Above-mentioned, respondent, who is the Chairman of the
Board to be levied against the publisher for its unauthorized reprinting KWF, is a non-career service personnel whose tenure is limited to
and selling of the dictionary. seven years as provided under R.A. No. 7104. Since her tenure is fixed
Respondent moved to dismiss the administrative case on by law, her removal from office is not at the pleasure of the
grounds of litis pendentia and forum shopping in view of the pending appointing authority.
Sandiganbayan case. The PAGC denied respondent's motion to dismiss
and the OP advanced on respondent's dismissal from the service. As consistently ruled, a non-career service personnel enjoy
Respondent moved for reconsideration but was denied. Hence, security of tenure. They may not be removed without just cause and
she filed a petition for review with the CA, where it has been granted non-observance of due process as mentioned in Jocom v. Regalado.
respondent's petition holding that the proceedings before the PAGC
were substantially flawed for not giving her the opportunity to present Besides, the inaction to collect the royalty fee should not be
evidence. The CA also found no evidence to prove respondent's pinpointed to the respondent, since the KWF itself disauthorized her
administrative liability in not collecting the royalty fee. from entering a contract with the publisher. So, without this contract,
she is unauthorized to collect because there is no basis for collection.
Issue:
Whether the respondent, a presidential appointee and a holder Holding:
 The petition is DENIED for lack of merit and decision of the CA is setting aside the decision of the MSB or revoke the appointment of the
hereby AFFIRMED. petitioner Dr. Borja.
The petitioner filed this issue to the Supreme Court.
26. CENTRAL BANK v CSC
Issue
Facts Whether or not the Civil Service Commission has the power to
The Promotions Board of the Central Bank with a representative to revoke an appointment and appoint of a substitute of its choice?
the Civil Service Commission found that petitioner Dr. Angela Jordan
was qualified to the position of Assistant Bank Physician. The said
position has the Salary Grade of 22, and the petition then had the
Salary Grade of 20 which made the petitioner as qualified for the next Ruling
in rank position. The Senior Deputy Governor of the Central Bank No. The Civil Service Commission has no power to revoke an
approved the promotion of Dr. Jordan from the position of appointment and appoint of a substitute of its choice.
Coordinating Assistant to Assistant Bank Physician. Thus, contested by Under Section 7, par. A, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution, the
private respondent Dr. Basilio Borja . authority of the Civil Service Commission is limited to reviewing if the
The private respondent Borja contested to the Central Bank that he appointment complies with the requirement of the law. It is
was more qualified than she and he was the next-in-rank to that undisputed that the petitioner is qualified. The Civil Service
position, hence he should have been the one appointed as the Commission has no authority to revoke an appointment only for a
Assistant Bank Physician. However, the Central Bank dismissed his case ground that another person is more qualified. Moreover, the
because it was filed beyond the reglementary period and he is not the appointing authority is given ample discretion in the appointment of a
next-in-rank since he only has the Salary Grade of 16. qualified person to a vacant position. And therefore the Commission
After the Central Bank dismissed his case, he appealed to the Merit has no authority to direct the appointment of a substitute of its choice.
System Board. Yet, the decision of the MSB was set aside and
confirmed the approval of the appointment of Dr. Jordan. 27. BRILLANTES v COMELEC
The private respondent therefore appealed to the Civil Service
Commission on the grounds that he was denied due process of law Facts:
inasmuch as he was not furnished a copy of the motion for
reconsideration by the bank. The CSC thus forwarded the appeal to the Congress through the enactment of Republic Act No. 8436, authorize
Office of the Governor of the Central Bank his comment with the the COMELEC to use an Automated Election System (AES) for the
request that his comment be transmitted to the Commission with 10 process of voting, counting of votes and consolidating the results of
days after receipts. Likewise, petitioner Dr. Jordan furnished a copy election for both national and local elections. It also mandated the
with a warning that failure to do shall be considered a waiver of her COMELEC to acquire an automated counting machines, computer
right to submit the same. However, they filed a Ex-Parte Motion for equipment, devices and materials. RA 8436 authorizes to adopt a new
Extension of Time to File Comment due to they received the notice electoral forms and printing materials. The COMELEC intended to
beyond the 10 days period. However the CSC denied their petition, implement AES during the May 11, 1998, Presidential elections
directed the immediate appointment of the private respondent and particularly in Mindanao but due to the malfunctions of the machines,
the implementation was deferred.
 similar organizations with prior authority of the commission shall be
COMELEC adopts the Resolution No. 02-01790 which aims to entitled to one observer.
modernize the 2004 elections in 3 phases: I - Biometrics system of
registration, II - Computerized voting and counting of votes; and III - NAMFREL and heads of major political parties wrote to COMELEC their
Electronic transmission of results. Biddings for each phase was concern in Resolution 6712 for it disregards RA 8173, 8436 and 7166
conducted, which it only authorizes the citizen's arm to use an election return for
unofficial count. Also, the Board of Election Inspectors is only
Pres. Gloria Macapagal - Arroyo through EO 172 allocated the sum of authorized to have contact with the return before the commission
2.5 billion pesos to fund the AES. On February 10, 2003, COMELEC unseals it and the instruction in Resolution 6712 breaks the chain of
requested from Pres. Arroyo the release of the supplemental P500 custody making it void. In the present case, motion to admit attached
million budget, issued in EO 175. April 15, 2003, contracts on both petition-in-intervention was filed to the Court. Movants petitioners
Phase I and Phase II were awarded to Mega Pacific Consortium and urge the Court to declare Resolution 6712 as null and void.
Philippine Multi-Media System Inc. promulgated by the COMELEC in
Resolution No. 6074. But the Information Technology Foundation of Issue:
the Philippines filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition for the
nullification of the said resolution, approving the contract for Phase II. Whether the Resolution No. 6712 is VOID
However, due to the Court's decision, Resolution No. 6074 was
declared null and void. Phase II of the AES was scrapped and the Held:
COMELEC had to maintain the old manual voting and counting. The
Phase I also encountered problems in its implementation. So the Resolution 6712 is VOID. First, it violates Sec 4 of Art VII for preempting
COMELEC was determined to implement the Phase III (Election the sole and exclusive authority of congress to canvass the votes for
transmission of an "unofficial quick count"). election of President and Vice President. Returns of every election for
the said positions SHALL BE TRANSMITTED TO THE CONGRESS,
Senate President Franklin Drilon addressed a letter to Chairman Abalos DIRECTED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE. Second, it contravenes
that the COMELEC should not conduct quick count on the result of the the provision on Sec 29 (1) of Art VI that no money shall be paid out of
election on President and Vice President for it violates Sec 4 of Art. VII the treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation by law because
of the Constitution that the Congress has the sole and exclusive the election result is unofficial in character. Lastly, Resolution 6712
authority to canvass the votes for President and Vice President. Such disregards NAMFREL as the ACCREDITED CITIZENS ARM as it is provided
quick count conducted would be preemptive of the authority of the in Sec 27 of RA 7166 as amended by RA 8173 and reiterated in Sec 18
Congress and be lacking of any constitutional authority. of RA 8436. NAMFREL is exclusively authorized to use a copy of election
return for an unofficial counting of votes whether national or even in
On April 27, 2004, COMELEC met en banc and further discussed and local election.
resolved the implementation of Phase III. On the following day,
COMELEC approved Resolution No. 6712 declaring it adopts the policy 28. SANDOVAL v COMELEC
that the precinct election result in each city and municipality shall be
immediately transmitted to COMELEC Manila. In relation with this, the Petition for the Proclamation of Petitioner Sandoval as
citizens arm commission and civic, religious, professional and other congressman-elect for Malabon-Navotas Legislative District.
Facts: 9. Meanwhile, Navotas proceedings were disputed by riots of
1. Petitioner Sandoval and Private Respondent Canuto Oreta supporters of opposing mayoralty candidates that the comelec
vied for the position of Congressman in Malabon-Navotas had to more it to PICC.
district last May 11, 1988. 10. Comelec that released a resolution stating that the bond of
2. On the election day, voted had been cast and contented in canvassers must finish the report and must declare a winner.
various precints in the municipality. 11. Private respondent filed a petition and prayed to have the
3. In Malabon, a reception group and several canvasing announcement suspended and prayed for them to answer the
committee were formed to expedite the canvassing. inquiry about the election returns then they canvassed and found
4. May 16, 1998, Counsels for Private Respondent made a that 804 returns were counted and seeing no error proceeded in
request upon Malabon Election Officers to furnish to them a their plan to release the results.
complete set of the list of voters. They requested also for a 12. Then they declared Petitioner Federico Sandoval the duly
complete list of precints in the municipality together with the elected congressman of Legislative district of Malabon-Navatos.
number of voters. Sought permission to conduct an audit of 13. The following day, Private respondent filed with comelec an
tabulation reports. These requests were denied. appeal for Nullification of the proclamation. Verbal order to
1. That any counsel for candidate has neither personality resolve the canvass of votes-include 19 precints to canvass.
nor right to conduct an audit of the tabulation report 14. Comelec En Banc- Ordered that proclamation be set aside.
proceeding of the board presumed to be regular. District Board Void:
2. Granting of the requests would delay the proceedings of 3. Defiance of Verbal Order by the comelec to suspend
board the prejudice of the will of the people of Malabon. proclamation of winner until the correction of
5. On May 17, 1998, Malabon municipality board concluded manifest.
its proceedings. It canvassed 804 out of 805 precints- 4. Incomplete canvass
Private respondent obtained the highest number of vote 15. Petitioner filed a comment:
with 57,760 while petitioner was second with 42, 892 1. Comelec resolved the issue with hearing
votes. therefore not giving him his due process of
6. Ma. Rosario Lapuz, the authorized rep of private law.
respondent wrote comelec chairman Bernardo Pardo and 2. Violates Rep. Act 7166.
informed him that several election returns were not 3. Seeking correction does not live with comelec
included in the May 17 canvassing. but with board of canvass
7. May 19, 1998, Private Respondent wrote again and 4. Oreta based by his failure to raise questions
reiterated her claim. before.
8. May 23, 1998, Private respondent filed with Comelec- 16. SG Silvestre Bello III- Manifestation and Motion
Petition to correct Manifest error in Tabulation. He 5. Comelec Motio proprio and ex parte
contested that 804 election returns were canvasted but annulment of Petitioner's proclamation tainted
only 790 were returned. He prayed that: with Grave Abuse of discretion amounting to
1. The canvassers of Malabon reconvened to correct said lack of excess of jurisdiction and violated
error. petitioner's right to due process.
2. The declaration of Congressman be suspended until 6. Comelec has no jurisdiction
the alleged error be corrected. Issue:
1. Whether comelec has jurisdiction over the petition
 filed by Private Respondent. The COMELEC dismissed the petition because the grounds enumerated
2. Whether Due Process of Law was exercised. are not those which constitute declaration of failure of election under
Sec. 6 Art. 1 of Omnibus Election Code.
Held: Held:
Section 242 of the Omnibus Election Code of Comelec is Petition must fail. Sec. 6 Art. 1 of Omnibus Election Code clearly
authorize to resolve an illegal proclamation are after due provides that there are only three instances wherein a failure of
process and hearing. election may be declared, those are:
1. The election in any polling place has not been held on the date
The Comelec has Quasi-Judicial Power.
fixed because of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or
Comelec Order SPC 98-143 and SPC 98-208 is Annulled, other analogous causes.
Rewarded to the Comelec ordered to hold a hearing, whether
petitioner may hold office but it is still with the discretion of 2. The election in any polling place had been suspended before
Comelec. the hour fixed by law for the closing of voting on account of
force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous
causes.
29. AL HAJ v COMELEC
3. After voting and during the preparation and transmission of
Facts: the election returns or in the custody or canvass thereof, the
Tawantawan M. Caruntongan Al Haj and Nasser Manalao are election results in a failure to elect on account of force majeure,
candidates for Municipal Mayor and Vice Mayor, respectively. They
violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes.
filed a petition to COMELEC to declare a failure of elections in
Municipality of Munai, Lanao del Norte on the following grounds: The irregularities pointed by the petitioner such as vote buying, fraud,
1. Massive vote buying and terrorism are grounds for an election contest and may not be
invoked to declare a failure of election.
2. Illegal assignment of Rakim Paute as Election Officer of Munai

3. Appointment of disqualified BEI (Board of Election Inspectors)

30. GUEVARRA v COMELEC
4. Shoot out on the eve of the election between unidentified
armed men and members of the Phil. Army escorting election Facts
Petitioner ACME Steel Mfg. Co., Inc. was among those three
forms and paraphernalia in Barangay Cadulawan
corporations that the respondent Commission on Election contracted
5. Transfer of polling places without notice to manufacture & supply for ballot boxes.
However due to not signing the corresponding contract, the
6. Absence of voting booths in Barangay Tambo and Cadulawan respondent cancelled the award to the petitioner. The award allotted
to the ACME, partly distributed to those two companies, namely
7. Non-signing of voter’s registration form National Shipyards and Steel Corporation (NASSCO) and Asiatic Steel
Mfg. Co., Inc (ASIATIC).
 Therefore, petitioner filed a series of followed petitions for the The requisitioning and preparation of the necessary ballot boxes to
reconsideration of the resolution of the Commission. The first petition be used in the elections is by the same token an imperative ministerial
was filed and after hearing, it was denied by the Commission. The duty which the Commission is bound to perform if the elections are to
second petition was filed and still denied. The third petition was filed be held. In proceeding on this matter, it only discharged a ministerial
and because of seriousness of the grounds alleged therein for the duty and it did not exercise any judicial function. Such being the case,
annulment of its previous resolutions, the Commission resolved to it could not exercise the power to punish for contempt as postulated in
conduct a formal investigation on the matter ordering the NASSCO and the law, for such power is inherently judicial in nature. If a controversy
the ASIATIC to file their respective answers. Thereafter, after these arose among the suppliers, that again does not involve the exercise of a
corporations had filed their answers, the Commission held a formal judicial function. The exercise of the power of contempt by an
hearing, the ACME filed a memorandum on the points adduced during administrative body in the exercise of an administrative function is
the hearing but the Commission issued its resolution denying the third invalid.
motion for reconsideration.
The conflict arose when the petitioner signed the article issue of the 31. JARAMILLA v COMELEC
Sunday Times, a newspaper of nation-wide circulation. Thus, the
Comelec ordered the petitioner to show cause why he should not be  Petitioner: Alberto J. Jaramilla
punished for contempt for that article which degrade and undermine  Respondents: Comission on Elections, Antonio Suyat, Municipal
the Commission on all laws relative to conduct of elections. Board ofCanvassers of Sta Cruz, Ilocos Sur, The New Municipal
The petitioner elevates the matter to the Supreme Court in view of Board of Canvassers (COMELEC), and Ireneo Cortez
this issue.
Issue Alberto Jaramilla and Antonio Suyat - Both ran for the position
Whether or not the Commission on Election has the power and of Member of the Sangguniang Bayan in the Municipality of Sta.
jurisdiction to investigate and punish petitioner for contempt in Cruz, Ilocos Sur
connection with the alleged publication.
Ruling
No. The Comelec has no power and jurisdiction to investigate and to FACTS OF THE CASE
conduct petitioner to contempt proceedings if its purpose is to 1. 2. May 16, 2001, the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Sta.
discipline him due to the publication. Cruz, proclaimed the winning candidates for the offices of
Under Section 2, Article X of the Constitution, the Comelec shall Mayor, Vice-Mayor and eight (8) members of the Sangguniang
have exclusive charge of the enforcement and administration of all
Bayan.
laws relative to the conduct of elections and shall exercise all other
functions which may be conferred upon it by law. It shall decide, save 2. In the tabulated results issued by the Election Officer and
those involving the right to vote, all administrative questions, affecting
Chairperson of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Sta. Cruz, it
elections, except the right to vote. It includes the determination of the
number and location of polling places and the appointment of election is shown that [respondent Suyat] obtained Four thousand
inspectors and of other election officials. seven hundred seventy nine (4,779) votes and was ranked no.
9.
3. Upon review by [respondent Suyat], he discovered that
[petitioner] was credited with only twenty three (23) votes per ISSUES:
Election Return from Precinct No. 34A1. However, when the I. WHETHER THE COMMISSION ON ELECTION ERRED IN NOT
figures were forwarded to the Statement of Votes by Precinct, DISMISSING THE CASE CONSIDERING THAT THE PETITION FILED
[petitioner] was credited with seventy three (73) votes for BEFORE THE COMELEC WAS FILED BEYOND THE PRESCRIPTIVE
Precinct No. 34A1 or fifty (50) votes more than what he actually PERIOD AS SET FORTH IN THE COMELEC RULES OF PROCEDURE.
obtained II. WHETHER THE COMMISSION ON ELECTION ERRED IN GIVING
4. June 13, 2001, respondent Suyat filed before the COMELEC en DUE COURSE TO THE PETITION INSTEAD OF DISMISSING IT
banc an Urgent Motion for Issuance of Order to Reconvene,[3] CONSIDERING THAT THE PETITION LACKED A CERTIFICATION
which the latter treated as a Petition for Correction of Manifest AGAINST FORUM-SHOPPING.
Error. III. WHETHER THE COMMISSION ON ELECTION ERRED IN NOT
5. Petitioner countered in his Answer that said petition should be DISMISSING THE CASE FOR FAILURE TO PAY THE DOCKET OR
dismissed for having been filed out of time and for lack of the FILING FEE ON TIME.
required certification of non-forum shopping.

6. October 24, 2002, COMELEC en banc issued the assailed

resolution, which states that the proclamation of Respondent
HELD
Alberto J. Jaramilla is annulled. A New Municipal Board of  Jurisdiction of the COMELEC en banc in election cases. Article
Cavassers is created. IX-C of the Constitution states in part that:
7. The New Board is hereby directed to immediately convene after Sec. 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or
due notice to parties and effect a correction in the entry in the in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of
Statement of Votes by Precinct particularly the votes for procedure in order to expedite disposition of election
Respondent Alberto Jaramilla [herein petitioner], who should be cases, including pre-proclamation controversies. All such
credited with twenty three (23) votes only. election cases shall be heard and decided in division,
provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions
8. New Board shall prepare a corrected Certificate of Canvass and shall be decided by the Commission en banc.[7]
Proclamation on the basis of the New Statement of Votes and  As stated in the provision, and in line with the Courts recent
proclaim the Petitioner [herein private respondent Suyat] as the pronouncement in Milla v. Balmores-Laxa,[8] election cases
eighth (8th) Board Member of Sta. Cruz, Ilocos Sur. Mr. Ireneo including pre-proclamation controversies should first be heard
Habon Cortez shall be declared the 7th Municipal Board and decided by a division of the COMELEC, and then by the
Member. commission en banc if a motion for reconsideration of the
division is filed.
 It must be noted however that this provision applies only in fees. And even if it were not afforded such discretion, as
cases where the COMELEC exercises its adjudicatory or quasi- discussed above, it is authorized to suspend its rules or any
judicial powers, and not when it merely exercises purely portion thereof in the interest of justice.
administrative functions
 Laws governing election contests must be liberally construed
 When the case demands only the exercise by the COMELEC of to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public
its administrative functions, such as the correction of a officials may not be defeated by mere technical objections.
manifest mistake in the addition of votes or an erroneous
 Decision of the Court: No grave abuse of discretion committed
tabulation in the statement of votes, the COMELEC en banc can
by public respondent COMELEC, its Resolution en banc dated
directly act on it in the exercise of its constitutional function to
October 24, 2002 is AFFIRMED. The petition is DISMISSED.
decide questions affecting elections.

 Section 4, Rule 1 of the COMELEC Rules expressly provides that:

32. BAYTAN v COMELEC
SEC. 4. Suspension of the Rules In the interest of justice
and in order to obtain speedy disposition of all matters Challenged in this petition for certiorari with prayer for temporary
pending before the commission, these rules or any restraining order and preliminary injunction is the Resolution dated
03 June 2002 of the COMELEC en banc in EO Case 97-503. In its
portion thereof may be suspended by the Commission.
assailed Resolution, the COMELEC en banc denied the motion to
 COMELEC therefore has authority to suspend the reglementary
reconsider Minute Resolution No. 00-2281 dated 09 November
periods provided by the rules, or the requirement of 2000, ordering the Law Department to file criminal cases for double
certification of non-forum shopping for that matter, in the registration against petitioners, Baytan.
interest of justice and speedy resolution of the cases before it. The facts/antecedents :
On 15 June 1997, the petitioners registered for May 1998 election in
 COMELEC is not constrained to dismiss a case before it by Precinct 83-A of Barangay 18 Zone II of Cavite City. A week later,
reason of non-payment of filing fees.[14] Section 18, Rule 40 they registered anew in Precinct 129-A of Barangay 28.
Subsequently, petitioners sent letter dated 21 August 1997 to the
the COMELEC Rules of Procedure states:
COMELEC requesting for advice on how to cancel their previous
 SEC 18. Nonpayment of Prescribed Fees If the fees above registration. They also explained the reason and circumstances of
their second registration and expressed their intention to redress
prescribed are not paid, the Commission may refuse to take
the error.
action thereon until they are paid and may dismiss the action or On 16 September 1997,the Election Officer of Cavite City forwarded
the proceeding.[15] he copies of petitioners Voters Registration Records to the
Provincial Election Supervisor, Atty. Ravenzo for evaluation. Atty.
 The use of the word may in the aforecited provision readily Ravanzo endorsed the matter to the Regional Director for
shows that the COMELEC is conferred the discretion whether prosecution. Eventually, the Law Department endorsed the case to
to entertain the petition or not in case of non-payment of legal Ravanzo for resolution.
On 10 January 1998, Ravanzo recommended filing an information had another version. She claimed that on 15 June 1997, Ignacio
for double registration against petitioners. In an en banc meeting went to their house to inform them about the redefinition of their
held on 09 November 2000, the COMELEC in its Minute Resolution barangay’s territorial jurisdiction. Right then and there, Ignacio
No. 00-2281 affirmed the recommendation of Ravanzo. Petitioners brought her sons to Brgy. 18 to register. The COMELEC also pointed
moved for reconsideration. The COMELEC en banc denied the out that since double registration is malum prohibitum (wrong due
motion. to being prohibited), the petitioners’ claim of lack of intent to violate
Issues: the law is inconsequential. Neither did the COMELEC consider
Whether or not the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of petitioners’ letter dated 21 August 1997 as an application to cancel
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in: their previous registration. The COMELEC explained that the said
1. Recommending the prosecution of petitioners for double letter was sent after their second registration was accomplished and
registration despite clear and convincing evidence on record after the election officers had already reported their act of double
that they had no intention of committing said election registration to a higher official.
offense. As to the 3rd issue, there was no violation of the Constitution
particularly Section 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution. Under
2. Not considering the letter 21 August 1997 addressed to Section 2 of Article IX-C, the COMELEC exercises both
COMELEC Asst. Director of Cavite as substantial compliance administrative and quasi-judicial powers. The 1987 Constitution
with the requirement of the law for cancellation of previous does not prescribe how the COMELEC should exercise its
registration. administrative powers whether en banc or in division. The
Constitution merely vests the COMELEC’s administrative powers
3. Taking cognizance of the case in the first instance in violation while providing that the COMELEC may sit en banc or in 2 divisions.
of Section 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution. Clearly, the COMELEC en banc can act directly on matters falling
within its administrative powers. The COMELEC is empowered in
Held:
Section 2 (6), Article 9-C of 1987 Constitution to prosecute cases of
The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
violations of election laws. The prosecution of election law violators
On the first and second issues, the Court held that there is no
involves the exercise of the COMELEC’s administrative powers.
question that the petitioners registered twice on different days and
Thus, the COMELEC en banc can directly approve the
in different precincts without cancelling their previous registration.
recommendation of its Law Department to file the criminal
Aside from this, the COMELEC found certain circumstances
information for double registration against petitioners. There is no
prevailing in the case sufficient to warrant the finding of probable
constitutional requirement that the filing of the criminal
cause. The COMELEC noted that the petitioners wrote down
information be first decided by any of the division of the COMELEC.
different addresses in precinct 83-A and in precinct 129-A. The
In sum, the 2nd sentence of Section 3, Article IX-C of the 1987
COMELEC noted further that the affidavits submitted by the
Constitution is not applicable in administrative cases. Like the
petitioners contained glaring inconsistencies as against the sworn
instant case where the COMELEC is determining whether probable
statements of the Barangay Captain Ignacio and the mother (Aurora
cause exists to charge petitioners for violation of double
Baytan) of the petitioners. Petitioners claimed that Ignacio led them
registration. Indeed, the COMELEC acted in accordance with Section
to wrong precinct to register. However, Ignacio’s affidavit stated
9 (b), Rule 34 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure governing
that while he led them to voting precinct of Brgy. 18, he immediately
the prosecution of election offenses in meeting en banc in the first
left the area not knowing that petitioners registered in the wrong
instance and acting on the recommendation of Investigating Officer
barangay. Contrary to petitioners sworn statements, their mother
Ravanzo to file charges against petitioners.
 Pursuant to the said circular and the government’s
33. DBP v COA commitment to the World Bank, DBP Chairman Jesus Estanislao
wrote the COA seeking approval of the DBPs engagement of a
Case: This is a petition for review on certiorarii with prayer for a private external auditor in addition to the COA.
temporary restraining order assailing the letter-decision of the
Then COA Chairman Teofisto Guingona, Jr. replied to the letter of
Chairman of the Commission on Audit (COA) and the letter-decision of
the DBP Chairman stating that: the Commission on Audit (COA) will
the COA en banc, prohibiting the Development Bank of the Philippines
interpose no objection to the engagement of a private external auditor
(DBP ) from hiring a private external auditor and enjoining COA from
as required by the Economic Recovery Program Loan Agreements of
enforcing the letter-decisions. This petition raises a question of first
1987 and the next day, approved the terms of audit or the proposed
impression, whether or not the constitutional power of the COA to
scope of audit services to be undertaken by the private external
examine and audit the DBP is exclusive and precludes a concurrent
auditors to be engaged by the DBP. Subsequently, the Board of
audit of the DBP by a private external auditor.
Directors of the DBP approved the hiring of Joaquin Cunanan & Co. as
Facts:
the DBPs private external auditor for calendar year 1986 as required by
In 1986, the Philippine government, under the administration of
Central Bank Circular No. 1124 and the World Bank placing a ceiling on
then President Corazon C. Aquino, obtained from the World Bank an
the amount of reimbursable out-of-pocket expenses that could be
Economic Recovery Loan (ERL) in the amount of US$310 million to
charged by the private auditor and the World Bank President, in his
support the recovery of the Philippine economy, at that time suffering
Report to the Banks Executive Directors on the Philippine governments
severely from the financial crisis that hit the country during the latter
application for the ERL, certified that the Philippine government was
part of the Marcos regime.
complying with the requirement of a private external auditor.
As a condition for the loan grant, the World Bank required the
However, a change in the leadership of the COA, under Eufemio
Philippine government to rehabilitate the DBP, (a public corporation
Domingo suddenly reversed the course of events when he wrote the
under COA’s jurisdiction) which was then saddled with huge non-
Central Bank Governor protesting the Central Banks issuance of Circular
performing loan and was expected to continue providing principally
No. 1124 which allegedly encroached upon the COAs constitutional and
medium and long-term financing to projects with risks higher than the
statutory power to audit government agencies. The COA Chairman’s
private sector may be willing to accept. The government’s commitment
letter informed the Governor of its strong objection to that portion of
to rehabilitate the DBP to make it a viable and self-sustaining financial
the CBP Circular No. 1124 which requires government banks to engage
institution, was embodied in the Policy Statement for the Development
private auditors in addition to that conducted by the Commission on
Bank of the Philippines which stated partly: 4. Furthermore, like
Audit, and urges the immediate amendment thereof as said
all financial institutions under Central Bank supervision, DBP will now
requirement: (a) infringes on Article IX-D of the Philippine Constitution;
be required to have a private external audit,,
(b) violates Section 26 and 32 of the Government Auditing Code of the
Consequently, the Monetary Board adopted Resolution No. 1079 Philippines; (c) exposes the financial programs and strategies of the
amending the Central Banks Manual of Regulations for Banks and other Philippine Government to high security risks; (d) allows the
Financial Intermediaries, in line with the government’s commitment to unnecessary and unconscionable expenditure of government funds;
the World Bank to require a private external auditor for DBP. Thus, on and (e) encourages unethical encroachment among professionals.
December 5, 1986, the Central Bank Governor issued Central Bank
During the pendency of the DBP Chairman’s note-request for
Circular No. 1124.
concurrence, the DBP paid the billings of the private auditor in the total
amount of P487,321.14ii despite the objection of the COA. On October restraining order issued by the court enjoining respondent Commission
30, 1987, the COA Chairman issued a Memorandum disallowing the on Audit from enforcing the said decisions was made PERMANENT.
payments, as the services were unconstitutional, illegal and
unnecessary and holding the rest of the private petitioners personally
liable for such payment: Section 2, Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution provides that:
The DBP Chairman wrote the COA Chairman seeking Sec. 2. (1) The Commission on Audit shall have the power,
reconsideration of the COA Chairman’s Memorandum. However, the authority, and duty to examine, audit, and settle all
DBP received no response until August 29, 1988 when the COA accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and
Chairman issued a letter-decision denying petitioners July 1, 1987 note- expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned and
request for concurrence which is one of the two COA decisions assailed held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any of
in this petition, On September 26, 1988, the DBP Chairman appealed its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including
the letter-decision to the COA en banc. On May 20, 1989, the COA en government-owned or controlled corporations with original
banc, in a letter-decision, denied the DBPs appeal. This letter-decision, charters, x x x.
now also assailed by the DBP.
(2) The Commission shall have the exclusive authority,
subject to the limitations in this Article, to define the scope
The Issues :
of its audit and examination, establish the techniques and
The DBPs petition raises the following issues:
methods required therefore, and promulgate accounting
1. Does the Constitution vest in the COA the sole and exclusive power
and auditing rules and regulations, including those for the
to examine and audit government banks so as to prohibit concurrent
prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary,
audit by private external auditors under any circumstance?
excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures, or
2. Is there an existing statute that prohibits government banks from
uses of government funds and properties.
hiring private auditors in addition to the COA? If there is none, is there
an existing statute that authorizes government banks to hire private
auditors in addition to the COA?
1,) Power of COA to Audit under the Constitution,
3. If there is no legal impediment to the hiring by government banks of
a private auditor, was the hiring by the DBP of a private auditor in the The COAs power to examine and audit under the first paragraph is
case at bar necessary, and were the fees paid by DBP to the private not declared exclusive, while its authority to define the scope of its
auditor reasonable, under the circumstances? audit, promulgate auditing rules and regulations, and disallow
unnecessary expenditures under the second paragraph is expressly
declared exclusive. Other government agencies and their officials, as
The Court’s Ruling well as private auditors engaged by them, cannot in any way intrude
into this exclusive function of the COA.
The DBPs petition was meritorious and was GRANTED. The letter- The COA does not have the exclusive power to examine and audit
decision of the Chairman of the Commission on Audit dated August 29, government agencies. The framers of the Constitution were fully aware
1988, and the letter-decision promulgated by the Commission on Audit of the need to allow independent private audit of certain government
en banc dated May 20, 1989, were SET ASIDE, and the temporary agencies in addition to the COA audit, as when there is a private
investment in a government-controlled corporation, or when a e.) Section 31 of PD No. 1445 is bereft of any language that
government corporation is privatized or publicly listed, or as in the case prohibits, expressly or impliedly, the hiring of private auditors by
at bar when the government borrows money from abroad. government agencies and merely grants authority to the COA to hire
and deputize private auditors to assist the COA in the auditing of
However, as the constitutionally mandated auditor of all
government agencies and operate under the authority of the COA. By
government agencies, the COA’s findings and conclusions necessarily
no stretch of statutory construction can this provision be interpreted as
prevail over those of private auditors at least in so far as government
an absolute statutory ban on the hiring of private auditors by
agencies and officials are concerned.
government agencies.
The power of the COA to examine and audit government
f.) Section 32 of PD No. 1445 refers to contracts for studies and
agencies, while non-exclusive, cannot be taken away from the COA.
services relating to government auditing which the COA may or may
Section 3, Article IX-D of the Constitution mandates that:
not want to undertake itself for a government agency. Stated another
Sec. 3. No law shall be passed exempting any entity of the way, Section 32 speaks of studies and services that the COA may
Government or its subsidiary in any guise whatsoever, or any choose not to render to a government agency.
investment of public funds, from the jurisdiction of the
g.) Central Bank Circular No. 1124 amended Subsection 1165.5
Commission on Audit.
(Book I) of the Manual of Regulations for Banks and other Financial
Intermediaries to require each bank, whether government-owned or
2.) Statutes Prohibiting or Authorizing Private Auditors controlled or private, to cause an annual financial audit to be
conducted by an external auditor and states that the audit of a
a.) Section 26 of PD No. 1445, otherwise known as the government-owned or controlled bank by an external independent
Government Auditing Code of the Philippines, is a definition of the auditor shall be in addition to and without prejudice to that conducted
COAs general jurisdiction which may be exclusive or concurrent. by the Commission on Audit in the discharge of its mandate under
existing law. Furthermore, the Circular provides that the requirement
b.) Section 58 of the General Banking Law of 2000 (RA No. 8791) for an annual audit by an external independent auditor shall extend to
which authorizes unequivocally the Monetary Board to require banks, specialized and unique government banks such as the LBP and the DBP.
quasi banks, or trust entity to hire independent auditors to be chosen
h.) Section 6-D of the General Banking Act (RA No. 337) vested
by the bank, quasi-bank or trust entity concerned from a list of certified
the Monetary Board with the specific power to require a bank to
public accountants acceptable to the Monetary Board. .
engage the services of an independent auditor to be chosen by the
c.) Sections 25 and 28iii of the New Central Bank Act (RA No. 7653) bank concerned from a list of certified public accountants acceptable to
which authorize expressly the Monetary Board to conduct periodic or the Monetary Board.
special examination of all banks.
i.) Section 8 of PD No. 2029 which provides that the audit of
d.) Section 4 of the General Banking Law of 2000 provides that he government corporations by the Commission on Audit shall not
operations and activities of banks shall be subject to supervision of the preclude government corporations from engaging the services of
BangkoSentral and the latter thus exercises concurrent jurisdiction to private auditing firms provided, however, that even if the services of
examine and audit, or cause the examination and audit, of government the latter are availed of, the audit report of the Commission on Audit
banks. shall serve as the report for purposes of compliance with audit
requirements as required of government corporations under applicable  Petition for Certiorari (It is an order for the lower court to
law. deliver its record in a case so that the higher court may review
it) with Preliminary Injunction seeks to annul and set aside the
decision of COA dated February 1991.
3.) Necessity of Private Auditor and Reasonableness of the Fees  The petition denied the appeal of Bustamante from the
disallowance of its transportation allowance by Regional
Auditor Martha Roxana Caburian.
The hiring of a private auditor was not only necessary based on the  The transportation allowance was for the month of January
governments loan covenant with the World Bank, it was also necessary 1989, representing the amount of Php 1,250.00.
because it was mandated by Central Bank Circular No. 1124 under pain  Bustamante claimed that aside from the government vehicle
of administrative and penal sanctions. assigned to him (with the plate no. SCC 387). His basis for
The hiring of the private auditor by the DBP being a condition of claiming his transportation allowance is due to the NPC Board
the US$310 million World Bank loan to the Philippine government, the Resolution No. 81-95 (Pursuant thereto, NPC passed Resolution
fees of such private auditor are in reality part of the governments cost No. 81-95 dated April 20, 1981 authorizing the monthly
of borrowing from the World Bank. An annual private audit fee of reimbursement of representation and transportation
about half a million pesos added to the interest on a US$310 million allowance.)
loan would hardly make the cost of borrowing excessive, extravagant  He received a Notice of Disallowance on 31 May 1990. Because
or unconscionable compared to the COA’s billing. The condition of this, the petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent Regional
imposed by a lender, whose money is at risk, requiring the borrower or Auditor dated 18 June 1990 for reconsideration of the
its majority-owned subsidiaries to submit to audit by an independent disallowance of the claim for transportation allowance.
public accountant, is a reasonable and normal business practice.  On 27 June 1990, the respondent Auditor denied the
Petitioner’s appeal. Consequently, the COA Central Office also
denied the petitioner’s appeal.
34. BUSTAMANTE v COA
The Court’s Decision
 Petitioner: Atty. Benito M. Bustamante (Regional Legal Counsel
of the National Power Corporation (NPC) for the Northern Luzon
 Grave Abuse of Discretion: the power is exercised in an
Regional Center (covering the provinces of Rizal to Batanes)
arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal
 Respondent: Commission on Audit & Regional Auditor Martha hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an
Roxana Caburian evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the
 Issue: Whether the denial to the petitioner’s appeal constitutes duty enjoined or to act at all in the contemplation of law.
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction? (The  Denial of the Appeal is within the power of COA as it is
petitioner was appealing to set aside the decision to disallow provided in the Constitution: Art 12, Sec. 2, Par. D: Powers and
him to get his travel allowance.) Functions of COA.
 COA Circular No. 75-6 dated Nov. 7, 1975 (Regulating the use of
Facts of the Case:
government motor vehicles, aircrafts and watercrafts).
  Sec. 14, PD 733: Prohibition against the use of government by Nazareno, Roxas, Tanchanco, Godoy, Nacpil, Kairan, Osea, Flores,
official provided with transportation allowance. Custodio, Espeña, Former DILG Secretary Santos and Generosa
 NPC is not exempted from the power of COA and its duty to Ramirez.
examine, audit and settle accounts pertaining to government
expenditures, in this case the use of transportation allowance. After preliminary investigation, the Deputy Ombudsman for the
 Transportation allowance is mutually exclusive with the use of Military recommended the indictment of all, except Ramirez.
government vehicle.
On review, the Office of the Special Prosecutor recommended the
 A mere Board of Resolution cannot go beyond what the
dismissal of the complaints against Roxas, Nacpil, Codoy, Kairan and
Constitution provides.
Ramirez. Formal charges were filed against them but Roxas, Nacpil,
 Decision of the Court: Petition Dismissed for Lack of Merit
Codoy, Kairan and Ramirez were not included in the information.
35. DBP v COA Flores and Tanchanco moved for reinvestigation, which was granted,
36. NUNEZ v SANDIGANBAYAN and later dismissed charges against the two. However, the Special
37. ROXAS v VELASQUEZ Prosecutor ordered to include Roxas, Nacpil and Kairan in the same
case. The three filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the Special
The case is the Motion for Reconsideration of Manuel Roxas seeking to Prosecutor and the Ombudsman disapproved. The Ombudsman filed
set aside the Supreme Court's Decision on June 19, 2001. He said that an amended information with the Sandiganbayan including them as
the Supreme Court erred on not finding violation of due process and
grave abuse of discretion; that the Supreme Court unnecessarily and coaacused.
excessively reviewed or interfered with prosecutorial prerogatives of
the Ombudsman and; that the Supreme Court's Decision will greatly Roxas and Nacpil filed an instant petition for certiorari and prohibition
affect the administration of justice especially the Ombudsman's seeking to annul their inclusion in the information. The petition was
determination of probable cause. first dismissed because the Ombudsman did not lose jurisdiction over
petitioners after the charges were dismissed and, that they were not
Special Prosecutor Ferrer argued that the issues were already been denied of due process because they were able to file their counter-
resolved by the Court and the Solicitor General commented that Roxas affidavits.
was not denied of due process since he was no stranger to the
proceedings and his side was heard. The Supreme Court found that Roxas's participation was limited and
has not abused his authority, while the Special Prosecutor suggested to
These issues started when Philippine Constabulary Integrated National hold Osea liable for the violation of AntiGraft law because of his
Police initiated a bid for the supply of 65 fire trucks and the contract cooperation with Nazareno's manipulative scheme to favor Tahei Co,
was awarded to Tahei Co, Ltd. When Commission on Audit reviewed Ltd. Later on, Special Prosecutor recommended the indictment of the
the contract, there was an excess of P19,030,570.00 in total pricing of petitioners because their cooperation was indispensable to fulfill the
the 65 fire trucks. contract.

In 1993, DILG Secretary Rafael Alunan III filed a complaint with the The Court ruled that in cases where the Ombudsman and the Special
Ombudsman for violation of corrupt practices under RA 3019 against Prosecutor were unable to agree on whether or not a probable cause
those who participated in finalizing the bid and the contract. They are exists, the Court may interfere. The Ombudman may have erred in
disregarding the Special Prosecutor's recommendation, however, he corresponding Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan (SB). The
should be allowed to review his decision and may correct it if SB found probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest of
necessary. The Court also found that the petitioners were deprived of respondents and issued the same against them, where respondents
due process when reinstating the complaint against petitioners without posted bail. On the same day, respondents filed a Motion for
their knowledge. They were not informed about the reinvestigation, Reconsideration but the Office of Ombudsman  denied the motion with
which is a different proceeding from the preliminary investigation, and the ratiocination that the filing of an Information before the SB
so, they were unable to participate in the proceedings. precluded the said Office from taking cognizance of the said motion.

The Court remanded the case to the Ombudman to determine However the respondents filed with the SB a joint motion for
probable cause. reconsideration. The SB granted the motion of the respondent and
ordered the prosecutor to reinvestigate the evidence and take the
appropriate action..  The Special Prosecutor office agreed with the
38. PEOPLEv VELEZ findings that there was a prima facie case against respondents but
recommended modifications to the Ombudsman, namely, that the
Facts Information in Criminal Case No. 24307 be withdrawn and another
The petitioner Salmingo filed a criminal affidavit with the office Information for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 be filed only
of the Ombudsman against the respondents Edwin Velez City mayor of against City Engineer Eladio S. Mondragon Jr. They found out that there
Silay, along with 3 others. The petitioner charged the respondents of was no overpricing of the said equipment and stated that the city
the following: engineer will be the one liable because he was the who should have
1. Installing and operating a rock crusher without the required inspected the equipment before purchase, this is a negligence on his
Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC) from the DENR; part who failed to exercise the degree of diligence he was expected to
perform.. The SB granted the motion to withdraw Information of the
2. Incurring an overdraft against appropriation in the amount of prosecution and the case was dismissed. However Salmingo filed for a
P3.991M, in violation of Section 158 of the Government Accounting motion for reconsideration which was subsequently denied.
and Auditing Manual; Issue:
1. Wether the petitioner has the proper standing to file the case
3. Entering into a transaction that is grossly or manifestly
2. hether SB violated Section 27 of RA 6770 when it treated the
disadvantageous to Silay City, in violation of Sec. 3 (g) of RA No. 3019;
"Joint Motion for Reconsideration / Reinvestigation" of
4. Malversation of P2.528M in violation of Art. 217 of the RPC; and respondents as a motion for reconsideration under Sec 27 of RA
6770 and when it granted the "Motion to Withdraw
5. Technical Malversation of at least P11.648M in violation of Sec. 305 Information" filed by the Office of the Ombudsman and
(a) of the Local Government Code and Art. 220 of the RPC dismissed Criminal Case No. 24307.

After preliminary investigation, the Graft Investigator prepared Held:

a Resolution recommending the filing of Information against One the first issue the court agrees with the contention of the
respondents excluding the City Budget Officer for violation of Sec 3 of respondent that the petitioner is not the proper party as the petitioner
RA 3019. The Resolution was approved by the Ombudsman and the on the said case. The Court has previously held that the "party"
referred to in the rule is the original party in the main case aggrieved by WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, it is respectfully recommended
the order or decision in the main case. Hence only the aggrieved that:
original party in the main case is the only proper party as petitioner,
which is the city of Silay because it is the one who was directly Respondent ATTY. RONALDO P. LEDESMA be SUSPENDED from the
aggrieved by the respondents which makes Salmingo as its witness service for one (1) year for Conduct Prejudicial to the Interest of the
only. Service.
On the second issue the SB did not violate sec. 27 of RA 6770
when it treated the motion for reconsideration. It is shown in the Respondent Assistant Ombudsman Abelardo L. Aportadera, Jr.
records that when the office of Ombudsman approved the resolution reviewed the Joint Resolution which was approved by respondent
that was prepared by the Graft investigator then information created Ombudsman Desierto on December 29, 1999.
was filed prematurely against the respondents
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration in the administrative case.
The motion was denied but the period of suspension was reduced from
39. LEDESMA v CA
one (1) year to nine (9) months without pay.
FACTS: On April 13, 2000, petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court
of Appeals, which included a prayer for the issuance of a writ of
Petitioner Atty. Ronaldo P. Ledesma is the Chairman of the First preliminary prohibitory mandatory injunction and/or temporary
Division of the Board of Special Inquiry (BSI) of the Bureau of restraining order to enjoin public respondents from implementing the
Immigration and Deportation. In a letter-complaint filed by Augusto order of suspension. The Court of Appeals issued the TRO on April 19,
Somalio with the Fact Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FIIB) of the 2000.
Office of the Ombudsman, an investigation was requested on alleged
anomalies surrounding the extension of the Temporary Resident Visas In its Decision dated August 28, 2003, the Court of Appeals affirmed
(TRVs) of two foreign nationals. The FIIB investigation revealed seven petitioner’s suspension but reduced the period from nine (9) months to
other cases of TRV extensions tainted with similar irregularities. six (6) months and one (1) day without pay.

As a result, the FIIB, as nominal complainant, filed before the With the denial of his motion for reconsideration, petitioner filed the
Administrative Adjudication Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman a instant petition for review.
formal complaint against herein petitioner. The complaint was treated
as both a criminal and an administrative charge and docketed as OMB- ISSUE: Whether the Ombudsman’s findings that the TRV applications
0- 98-0214 (criminal aspect), for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt were illegal constitutes an indirect interference by the Ombudsman
Practices Act and for falsification of public documents, and OMB-ADM- into the powers of the BOC over immigration matters.
0-98-0038 (administrative aspect), for Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct,
Falsification of Public Documents and Gross Neglect of Duty. HELD: We do not agree. The creation of the Office of the Ombudsman
is a unique feature of the 1987 Constitution. The Ombudsman and his
In a Joint Resolution dated January 22, 1999, Graft Investigation Officer deputies, as protectors of the people, are mandated to act promptly on
Marlyn M. Reyes resolved the administrative case filed against complaints filed in any form or manner against officers or employees of
petitioner the Government, or of any subdivision, agency or instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
Foremost among its powers is the authority to investigate and complainant for the copies of the school canteen's financial
prosecute cases involving public officers and employees. statements.
After respondents had given their side of complaints, graft investigation
Republic Act No. 6770, otherwise known as The Ombudsman Act of officer Helen M. Acuna found respondents guilty of violation of Section
1989, was passed into law on November 17, 1989 and provided for the 5(a) of R.A No. 6713 and imposed upon them the penalty of reprimand.
structural and functional organization of the Office of the Ombudsman. However, Officer Julita Calderon set aside the said decision finding that
Under RA 6770, the lawmakers intended to provide the Office of the respondents were also guilty of conduct grossly prejudicial to the best
Ombudsman with sufficient muscle to ensure that it can effectively interest of the service under Section 22(t) of Rule XIV, of the Omnibus
carry out its mandate as protector of the people against inept and Rules Implementing Book V of EO No. 292, and accordingly penalizing
corrupt government officers and employees. The Office was granted them with six months suspension. Respondent’s motion for
the power to punish for contempt in accordance with the Rules of reconsideration and or reinvestigation having been denied elevated the
Court. It was given disciplinary authority over all elective and case to Court of Appeals. The appellate court declared that the penalty
appointive officials of the government and its subdivisions, is merely recommendatory to the Department of Education.
instrumentalities and agencies (with the exception only of impeachable Issue:
officers, members of Congress and the Judiciary). Also, it can Whether the office of the Ombudsman has the Authority to impose
preventively suspend any officer under its authority pending an administrative sanctions over public officials.
investigation when the case so warrants. HELD:
The Court notes that the provisions under Article XI, Section 13 of the
The Philippine Ombudsman, as protector of the people, is armed with 1987 Constitution and Section 15(3) of R.A 6770 qualifies the "order"
the power to prosecute erring public officers and employees, giving “to remove, suspend, demote, fine, censure, or prosecute" an officer or
him an active role in the enforcement of laws on anti-graft and corrupt employee “— akin to the questioned issuances in the case at bar. The
practices and such other offenses that may be committed by such power of the Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute any illegal act
officers and employees. The legislature has vested him with broad or omission of any public official is not an exclusive authority but a
powers to enable him to implement his own actions. shared or concurrent authority in respect of the offense charged.
By stating that the Ombudsman "recommends" the action to be taken
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED.
against an erring officer or employee, the provisions in the Constitution
40. OMBUDSMAN v MADRIAGA and in R.A. 6770 intended that the implementation of the order be
coursed through the proper officer.
Facts: The word "recommend" in Sec. 15(3) must thus be read in conjunction
The San Juan School club through its president Teresa Nuque, filed with the phrases "ensure compliance therewith" or "enforce its
before the Office of the Ombudsman a complaint against respondents disciplinary authority” as provided in Section 21 of R.A. No. 6770. In
Gertrude Madriaga, school principal of San Juan Elementary School and fine, the Ombudsman's authority to impose administrative penalty and
Anna Marie Bernardo, canteen manager of the same school, in enforce compliance therewith is not merely recommendatory. It is
violation of Section 1 of Rule IV and Section 1 of Rule VI of the Rules mandatory within the bounds of the law. The implementation of the
Implementing Republic Act (R.A) No. 6713 otherwise known as the order imposing the penalty is, however, to be coursed through the
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and proper officer. The challenged Court of Appeals decision is reversed
employees, for not promptly responding to the letter request of the and set aside.
 but can only conduct the same if instructed to do so by Ombudsman.
41. ZALDIVA v SB Even his original power to issue subpoena, which still claims under
Section 10(d) of PD 1630, is now deemed transferred to the
Facts: ombudsman, who may, however, retain it in the Special Prosecutor in
The petitioner filed two (2) petitions against the respondent. connection with the case he is ordered to investigate.
Nos. L-79690-707 in April 27, 1988 and Nos. L- 80578 in April 27, 1988.
In g.r. no. 79690-707, “Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and WHEREFORE, the court hereby:
Mandamus under Rule 65”, petitioner Enrique A. Zaldivar, governor of 1. GRANT the consolidated petitions filed by petitioner Zaldivar
the province of Antique, sought to restrain the Sandiganbayan and and hereby NULLIFY the criminal information’s filed against him
Tanodbayan Raul Gonzalez from proceeding with the Prosecution and in the Sandiganbayan; and
hearing of Criminal cases Nos. 12159 to 12161 and 12163-12177 (for
2. ORDER respondent Raul Gonzalez to cease and desist from
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) on the ground
conducting investigations and filing criminal cases with the
that said cases were filed by said Tanodbayan without legal and
constitutional authority, since under the 1987 Constitution which took Sandiganbayan or otherwise exercising the powers and
effect on February 2, 1987, it is only the Ombudsman (not the present functions of the Ombudsman.
or incumbent Tanodbayan) who has the authority to file cases with the SO ORDERED.
Sandiganbayan, and
In g.r. no. 80578, petitioner Enrique A. Zaldivar, on substantially 42. ORAP v SANDIGANBAYAN
the same ground as the first petition, prays that Tanodbayan Gonzalez
be restrained from conducting preliminary investigations and filing Facts:
similar cases with the sandiganbayan. 1. Three info were filed before Sandiganbayan by
Issue: Tanodbayan Special Prosecutor Rodolfo Aquino
WON the respondent Raul Gonzalez still has the power and duty charging Presiding Judge of Mangataren, Pangasinan.
as Tanodbayan-Ombudsman under the 1987 Constitution. Vicente Orap with violation of Sec (3) of Rep Act 3019
Held: or otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
No. the duty is given to the Ombudsman; the incumbent Practice Act.
Tanodbayan (called Special Prosecutor under the 1987 Constitution and 2. Accused unlawfully and feloniously recieved various
who is supposed to retain powers and duties not given to the amounts of money from several persons in connection
Ombudsman) is clearly without authority to conduct preliminary with Criminal Case No. 2032 or People vs Iglesias-for
investigations and to direct the filing of criminal cases with the reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide,
serious physical injury and damage to property.
Sandiganbayan, except upon orders of the Ombudsman. This right to
3. Before schedules arraignment, Petitioner filed a
do so was lost effective February 2, 1987. From that time, he has been
motion to quash info on ground that officer who
divested of such authority.
signed the same had an authority to do so and
Under the present Constitution, the Special Prosecutor (Raul Sandiganbayan did not acquire jurisdiction.
Gonzalez) is a mere subordinate of the Tanodbayan (Ombudsman) and Issue:
can investigate and prosecute cases only upon the latter’s authority or 1. Whether provision sec. 9 in relation to section 10 of PD 1607 of
orders. The Special Prosecutor cannot initiate the prosecution of cases the Tanodbayan decree is applicable.
 No, the court declares that the CHR has no such power and it was
Held: not meant by the fundamental law to be another court or quasi-
Section 17 and sec 19 of PD 1607 gives authority to conduct judicial agency in this country or duplicate much less take over the
preliminary investigation. Petition was dismissed. functions of the latter.
The Constitution clearly and categorically grants to the CHR the
power to investigate all forms of human rights violations involving
43. CARINO v CHR civil and political rights, it can exercise that power on its own
initiative or on complaint of any person but it cannot try and decide
Facts: cases as courts of justice or even quasi-judicial bodies do. To
On 17 September 1990, some 800 public school teachers, among investigate is not to adjudicate or judge. Adjudicate means to settle
them members of the Manila Public School Teachers Association in the exercise of judicial authority.
(MPSTA) and Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) undertook what The CHR has no business intruding into the jurisdiction and
they described as “mass concerted actions” to dramatize and functions of the Education Secretary or the Civil Service
highlight their plight resulting from the alleged failure of public Commission. Whether or not the conclusions reached by the
authorities to act upon grievances that had time and again been Secretary of Education in disciplinary cases are correct and are
brought to the latter’s attention. The mass action consisted in adequately based on substantial evidence or whether or not the
staying away from their classes, converging at the Liwasang Secretary of Education had in truth committed human rights
Bonifacio, gathering in peaceable assemblies. Among those who violations involving civil and political rights are matters which may
took part in the “concerted mass actions” were 8 private respondent be passed upon and determined through a motion for
teachers at the Ramon Magsaysay High School who had agreed to reconsideration addressed to the Secretary himself and in the event
support the non-political demands of MPSTA. of an adverse verdict, may be reviewed by the Civil Service
Despite directives for them to return to work within 24 hours, or Commission and eventually by the Supreme Court.
face dismissal, the teachers did not comply and the mass actions
continued into the week, with more teachers joining in the days that 44. CANONIZADO v AGUIRRE
followed. As a result thereof, the 8 teachers (private respondents)
were suspended from work for 90 days. The issue was then Facts:
investigated and on 17 December 1990, DECS Secretary Carino
ordered the dismissal from the service of one teacher and the The petitioners, Alexis Canonizado, Edgar Dula Torres, and
suspension of 3 others. The respondents complained to the CHR Rogelio A. Pureza were incumbent commissioners of the National
that while they were participating in peaceful mass actions, they Police Commission when Republic Act No. 8851, otherwise known as
suddenly learned of their replacements as teachers, allegedly the PNP Reform and Reorganization Act of 1998, took effect.
without notice and consequently for reasons completely unknown
to them. The NAPOLCOM was originally created under Republic Act No.
Issue: 6975 (RA 6975), entitled "An Act Establishing The Philippine National
Whether or not the CHR has the power under the Constitution to try Police Under A Reorganized Department Of The Interior And Local
and decide and determine certain specific cases such as the alleged
Government, And For Other Purposes." Under RA 6975, the petitioners
human rights violation involving civil or political rights.
were appointed as commissioners of the NAPOLCOM. None of their
Held:
terms had expired at the time the amendatory law was passed.
 units therein, including the lines of control, authority and responsibility
On March 6, 1998, RA 8551 took effect; it declared that the between them. In involves a reduction in personnel, consolidation
terms of the current Commissioners were deemed as expired upon its of offices, or abolition thereof by reason of economy or redundancy of
effectivity and thus assailed by petitioners for being unconstitutional. functions.
According to petitioners, sections 4 and 8 of RA 8551 are
unconstitutional and they argue that their removal from office by virtue Naturally, it may result in the loss of one's position through
of section 8 of RA 8551 violates their security of tenure. removal or abolition of an office. However, for a reorganization to be
valid, it must also pass the test of good faith. No bona fide
Public respondents insist that the express declaration in section reorganization of the NAPOLCOM having been mandated by Congress,
8 of RA 8551 that the terms of petitioners' offices are deemed expired RA 8851, insofar as it declares the terms of office of the incumbent
discloses the legislative intent to impliedly abolish the NAPOLCOM commissioners, petitioners herein, as expired and resulting in their
created under RA 6975 pursuant to a bona fide reorganization. In removal from office, removes civil service employees from office
support of their theory, public respondents cite the various changes without legal cause and must therefore be struck down for being
introduced by RA 8551 in the functions, composition and character of constitutionally infirm. Petitioners are thus entitled to be reinstated to
the NAPOLCOM as proof of Congress' intention to abolish the body office. It is of no moment that there are now new appointees to the
created under RA 6975 in order to replace it with a new NAPOLCOM NAPOLCOM. It is a well-entrenched principle that when a regular
which is more civilian in nature, in compliance with the constitutional government employee is illegally dismissed, his position never becomes
mandate. vacant under the law and he is considered as not having left his office.
The new appointments made in order to replace petitioners are not
Issues: valid.
The question that must first be resolved is whether or not
petitioners were removed by virtue of a valid abolition of their office by
Congress. More specifically, whether the changes effected by RA 8551
in reference to the NAPOLCOM were so substantial as to effectively
create a completely new office in contemplation of the law.

Held:
NONE. R.A. 8551 did not expressly abolish petitioners' positions.
In order to determine whether there has been an implied abolition, it
becomes necessary to examine the changes introduced by the new law
in the nature, composition and functions of the NAPOLCOM.

The powers and duties of the NAPOLCOM remain basically

unchanged by the amendments. The NAPOLCOM continues to exercise
substantially the same administrative, supervisory, rule-making,
advisory and adjudicatory functions. Reorganization takes place when
there is alteration of the existing structure of the government offices or
i
ii
iii