political law digests 2 from internet.docx

8/17/2019 Political Law Digests 2 from internet.docx

1/33

Political Law Digests 2

Sequestration

Republic v. Saludares327 SCRA 449

FACTS: The PCGG issued a writ of sequestration against the Lianga BayLogging Company, which was later lifted by the andiganbayan! PCGGfiled a "otion for #econsideration, but it was denied! Pri$ate respondent,on the other hand, filed a complaint for collection of a sum of moneyagainst the company with prayer for preliminary attachment where PCGGwas not impleaded as defendant nor was the sequestration made %nown to

the #TC! The Court granted the preliminary attachment, and because offailure of company to answer complaint, it also declared the company indefault and ruled in fa$or of pri$ate respondent! Petitioner argues that #TChas no &urisdiction o$er the case since the sequestered assets areunder custodia legis of the PCGG!

HELD: The C ruled that the order of default of the #TC is affirmed butshould be held in abeyance until the sequestration case is determined!'owe$er, the order of attachment was declared null and $oid! The Court

said that the disputed properties of the company were alreadyunder custodia legis by $irtue of a $alid writ of sequestration issued by thePCGG when the &udge issued the writ of attachment! ince the writ ofsequestration was already subsisting, it could not be interfered with by the#TC because the PCGG is a coordinate and equal body!

Public Corporations

I. Metropolitan Manila Development Aut orit!

MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Association, Inc.G.R. NO. 135962 (Marc 27! 2"""#

FACTS: #espondent filed a case against petitioner en&oining them fromopening the (eptune treet and prohibiting the demolition of the perimeterwall! The trial court denied issuance of a preliminary in&unction! )n appeal,the appellate court ruled that the ""D* has no authority to order theopening of (eptune treet, and cause the demolition of its perimeter walls!

http://jamesmamba.blogspot.com/2012/05/political-law-digests-2.htmlhttp://jamesmamba.blogspot.com/2012/05/political-law-digests-2.html


2/33

+t held that the authority is lodged in the City Council of "a%ati byordinance! 'ence this petition!

HELD: The ""D* has no power to enact ordinances for the welfare of thecommunity! 'ence, its proposed opening of (eptune treet which was notmandated by the angguniang Panlungsod of "a%ati City, is illegal!

II. Po"ers

A. E#propriation

Heirs Of Suguitan v. it! Of Mandalu!ong G.R. NO. 139"$7 (Marc 14! 2"""#

FACTS: The angguniang Panglungsod of "andaluyong City issued a

resolution authori ing "ayor *balos to institute e-propriation proceedingso$er the property of uguitan! The city filed a complaint for e-propriationwhen uguitan refused to sell the property! The city later assumedpossession of the property by $irtue of a writ of possession issued by thetrial court! The court later issued an order of e-propriation! Petitionersargue that the local go$ernment unit.s delegated power of eminent domainmust be e-ercised through the issuance of an ordinance, not by mereresolution!

HELD: The law may delegate the power of eminent domain to localgo$ernment units that shall e-ercise the same through an ordinance! Thelocal go$ernment unit failed to comply with this requirement when theye-ercised their power of eminent domain through a resolution! The LocalGo$ernment Code.s requirement of an ordinance pre$ails o$er the+mplementing #ules and #egulations requiring the issuance of a resolution!

$. Po"er To Sue An% $e Sue%

Mancenido v. AG.R. NO. 11$6"5(A%ril 12! 2"""#

FACTS: Petitioners, who are public school teachers, filed a case againstthe pro$incial officials to compel them to pay their claims for unpaid salaryincreases! +n this petition for re$iew on certiorari, they argue that the C*erred in recogni ing the authority of the council of the pro$incial officials tofile a notice of appeal!


3/33

HELD: The C held that in resol$ing whether a local go$ernment officialmay secure the ser$ices of pri$ate counsel in an action filed against him inhis official capacity, the nature of the action and the relief sought are to beconsidered! +n $iew of the damages sought in the case at bar which, ifgranted, could result in personal liability, respondents could not be deemedto be improperly represented by pri$ate counsel!

C. &e'istration () Tric!cle An% Licensin' () Drivers

"and #ransportation Office v. it! Of Butuan322 SCRA $"5

FACTS: The issue in this case is whether under the present set/up thepower of the LT) to register, tricycles in particular, as well as to issuelicenses for the dri$ing thereof, has li%ewise de$ol$ed to local go$ernment

units!

HELD: The C ruled that the registration and licensing functions are$ested in the LT) while franchising and regulatory responsibilities are$ested in the LT0#B! 1nder the Local Go$ernment Code, LG1s ha$e thepower to regulate the operation of tricycle for hire and to grant franchise forthe operation thereof!

III. *uali)ication () Local Elective ())icials

#ora!no v. OM$"$ G.R. NO. 137329 (August 9! 2"""#

FACTS: This case in$ol$es a petition for quo warranto filed against therespondent on the ground that he was not able to fulfill the requirement ofresidency of /yr in Cagayan de )ro City when he ran for mayor!#espondent pre$iously ser$ed as go$ernor of "isamis )riental for 3consecuti$e terms before he registered as a $oter in Cagayan de )ro Cityand subsequently ran for mayor!

HELD: #espondent was able to fulfill the residency requirement neededfor him to qualify as a mayoralty candidate! 'e bought a house in Cagayande )ro City in 453! 'e actually resided there before he registered as a$oter in that city in 445!

I+. Le'islationMalon%o v. &a'ora


4/33

323 SCRA $75 FACTS: * supplemental budget was passed by the councilors upon threereadings held on the same day! They were charged with misconduct!

HELD: There is no law prohibiting the holding of the three readings of aproposed ordinance in one session day!

+. &ecall Afiado v. OM$"$

G.R. NO. 1417$7 (Se%te&'er 1$! 2"""#FACTS: This case in$ol$es a petition as%ing for the annulment of aresolution calling for the recall of the $ice/mayor! The barangay officials in apreparatory recall assembly passed this resolution! The proclaimed mayorat that time was the son of the pre$ious mayor who had already ser$ed for

3 consecuti$e terms! The father ran for a 6 th term but withdrew, and wassubstituted by the son! The opponent filed a petition as%ing for theannulment of the substitution! 7hen the C ruled that the substitution wasin$alid, the $ice/mayor became the mayor! 'ence this petition!

HELD: The specific purpose of the preparatory recall assembly was tore$i$e the $ice/mayor! 'owe$er, the resolution does not apply to the $ice/mayor anymore, since she ga$e up the office of $ice/mayor when sheassumed the position of mayor!

ADMI,IST&ATI+E LA-I. &e'ulations

A. Po"er

()ilippine Registered $lectrical (racticioners v. *rancia322 SCRA 5$7

FACTS: Petitioner assails a resolution issued by the Board of 8lectrical8ngineering which pro$ided for a Continuing Professional 8ducation 9CP8:Program for electrical engineers which required that they must earn creditunits of CP8 before their licenses could be renewed! Before these creditunits could be earned, they must first apply for accreditation with the+nstitute of +ntegrated 8lectrical 8ngineers of the Philippines! Petitionerargues that the resolution is $iolati$e of the equal protection and dueprocess clauses, prohibition against bills of attainder and e %ost)acto laws, and mandate for the protection of the rights of wor%ers!


5/33

HELD: The C denied the petition for being moot and academic! President#amos had later issued 8!)! (o! 2;;, which imposed upon registeredprofessionals, the completion of the CP8 as a pre/requisite for the renewalof their licenses!

S+M Realt! orporation v. Office Of #)e (resident G.R. NO. 126999 (August 3"! 2"""#

FACTS: )n )ctober 23, 44, eries of 4>5!

HELD: The C ruled that the 3=/day period of appeal is sub&ect to thequalification that there are no other statutory periods of appeal applicable!

ection < of Presidential Decree (o! 4


6/33

(rovince Of &a'boanga Del orte v. AG.R. NO. 1"9$53 (Octo'er 11! 2"""#

FACTS: ?amboanga del (orte 8lectric Cooperation increased the fuelcompensation charge without the appro$al of the 8nergy #egulatoryBoard! *s a result, petitioner filed a complaint with the #TC!

HELD: The 8nergy #egulatory Board has &urisdiction o$er the fi-ing ofpower rates to be charged by electric cooperati$es! Petitioner should ha$ee-hausted the a$ailable administrati$e remedies before resorting to thecourt!

(i'entel v. AguirreG.R. No. 1329$$ (*ul+ 19! 2"""#

FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition see%ing to annulection of *dministrati$e )rder (o! 352, issued by the President, insofar

as it requires local go$ernment units to reduce their e-penditures by 2


7/33

ad&ustment in the allotment shall in no case be less than 3=@ of thecollection of national internal re$enue ta-es of the third fiscal yearpreceding the current one!

ection 6 of *) 352 cannot be upheld! * basic feature of local fiscalautonomy is the automatic release of the shares of LG1s in the nationalinternal re$enue! This is mandated by the Constitution and the LocalGo$ernment Code! ection 6 which orders the withholding of =@ of theLG1.s +#* clearly contra$enes the Constitution and the law!

Solar $ntertain'ent and (eople of t)e ()ilippines v. Hon. Ho G. R. No. 14"$63 (August 22! 2"""#

FACTS: The question raised in this case is whether or not the trial court

can indefinitely suspend the arraignment of the accused until the petitionfor re$iew with the ecretary of ustice has been resol$ed, without $iolating#* >643, otherwise %nown as The peedy Trial *ct of 44>E!

HELD: The power of the ecretary of ustice to re$iew resolutions of hissubordinates e$en after the information has already been filed in court iswell/settled! Procedurally spea%ing, after the filing of the information, thecourt is in complete control of the case and any disposition therein issub&ect to its sound discretion! The decision to suspend arraignment toawait the resolution of an appeal with the ecretary of ustice is ane-ercise of such discretion! Thus, public respondent did not commit gra$eabuse of discretion when it suspended arraignment to await the resolutionof her petition for re$iew with the ecretary of ustice! The C stressedthat the court is not bound to adopt the resolution of the ecretary of

ustice since the court is mandated to independently e$aluate or assessthe merits of the case, and may either agree or disagree with therecommendation of the ecretary of ustice!

The authority of the ecretary of ustice to re$iew resolutions of hissubordinates e$en after an information has already been filed in court doesnot present an irreconcilable conflict with the peedy Trial *ct! ection 5 of the *ct prescribing the 3=/day period for the arraignment of the accused isnot absolute! +n fact, ection = of the law enumerates periods of delaythat shall be e-cluded in computing the time within which trial mustcommence! The e-ceptions pro$ided in the *ct reflect the fundamentally


8/33

recogni ed principle that the concept of speedy trialE is a relati$e term andmust necessarily be a fle-ible concept!

#ecently, the D) issued "emorandum )rder (o! 2 dated uly 3, 2===mandating that the period for the disposition of appealsFpetition for re$iewshall be 5< days! +n $iew of this memorandum, the indefinite suspension of proceedings in the trial court because of a pending petition for re$iew withthe ecretary of ustice is now unli%ely to happen!

Isagani ru% and $uropa v. Secretar! of $nviron'ent and atural Resources, et al

FACTS: Petitioners +sagani Cru and Cesar 8uropa brought this suit forprohibition and mandamus as citi ens and ta-payers, assailing the

constitutionality of certain pro$isions of #* >35 , otherwise %nown as the+ndigenous Peoples #ights *ct of 445 9+P#*: and its +mplementing #ulesand #egulations! The olicitor General is of the $iew that the +P#* is partlyunconstitutional on the ground that it grants ownership o$er naturalresources to indigenous peoples and prays that the petition be granted inpart! The Commission on 'uman #ights asserts that +P#* is ane-pression of the principle of %are-s %atriae and that the tate has theresponsibility to protect and guarantee the rights of those who are at aserious disad$antage li%e indigenous people! +t prays that the petition bedismissed!

HELD: *fter due deliberation, 5 $oted to dismiss the petition, while 5 othermembers of the Court $oted to grant the petition! *s the $otes wereequally di$ided and the necessary ma&ority was not obtained, the case wasredeliberated upon! 'owe$er, after redeliberation, the $oting remained thesame! *ccordingly, pursuant to #ule


9/33

ci$il ser$ice eligibility required of the position, she was e-tended atemporary appointment only! he was later e-tended a permanentappointment when she acquired a Career er$ice Professional 8ligibility!7hen petitioner became the President of " 1, pri$ate respondent waslater dismissed! Petitioner argues that the dismissal was legal since thepri$ate respondent.s appointment lac%s the requisite confirmation by theBoard of #egents!

HELD: *d interim appointments are permanent but their terms are onlyuntil the Board disappro$es them! There is absolutely no showing that theBoard of #egents disappro$ed pri$ate respondent.s appointment! ince thepri$ate respondent holds an appointment under permanent status, heen&oys security of tenure as guaranteed by law!

II. TerminationSalvador v. A

+.R. O. /012 3Ma! 1, /2224FACTS: Petitioner had been a permanent employee of the D8(# when itwas reorgani ed under 8!)! (o! 42! This resulted in the con$ersion of thepositions of se$eral employees to coterminous! The petitioner was one ofthe employees who were offered a coterminous position! Petitioner laterfiled a complaint along with other employees! The court decided in theirfa$or, and ordered the reinstatement of the employees! D8(# failed tocomply with this order! "eanwhile, petitioner applied for a new opening inthe company but was ignored!

HELD: Petitioner was co$ered by the decision of the court and thusentitled to reinstatement! 'is act of applying for a new position cannot beconstrued against him!

III. A%ministrative Case

onse5ares v. Al'eida324 SCRA 3$$

HELD: * case against a public officer should not be dismissed e$en if thecomplainant has withdrawn it! 9 See also Lape a $! Pamarang 32< C#*66= and 0arrales $! Camorista 325 C#* >6:

Secretar! Of $ducation, ulture And Sports v. AG.R. NO. 12$559 (Octo'er 4! 2"""#


10/33

FACTS: The ecretary of 8ducation, Culture, and ports filed chargesagainst se$eral public school teachers for refusing to obey his return/to/wor% order, thus incurring unauthori ed absences for participating in amass action!

HELD: The C held that petitioners were liable for their participation in themass actions which actually amounted to a stri%e since they were in$ol$edin the concerted and unauthori ed stoppage of wor%!

I+. &i' ts/ Privile'es An% $ene)its

Secretar! of $ducation, ulture and Sports v. AG.R. No. 12$559 (Octo'er 4! 2"""#

HELD: * public officer found guilty is not entitled to bac%wages!


11/33

ELECTI(, LA-

I. Certi)icate () Can%i%ac!A. De)icienc!

on6uilla v. OM$"$ G.R. NO. 139$"1 (Ma+ 31! 2"""#

FACTS: *larilla filed his Certificate of Candidacy without indicating theposition he was aspiring for! 'owe$er, he attached a Certification whichindicated that he was being nominated for the position of municipal mayor!'e was later proclaimed as the mayor/elect! Petitioner argues that theCertificate of Candidacy should be declared null and $oid for failing tospecify the electi$e position that *larilla was running for!

HELD: *larilla.s failure to specify the public office he was see%ing in hisCertificate of Candidacy was not a fatal defect! 0irst, there was an attachedcertification which stated that he was being nominated for the position ofmunicipal mayor! econd, *larilla had rectified the deficiency by filing an

*mended Certificate! Third, there was a Certified List of Candidates listing *larilla for the position of mayor! 0inally, *larilla was elected mayor! +fsubstantial compliance with the 8lection Law should gi$e way to a meretechnicality, the will of the electorate, as far as *larilla is concerned, wouldbe frustrated!

$. Disquali)ication

II. Castin' o) +otes

A. Postponement o) Election

Bas)er v. OM$"$ G.R. NO. 139"2$ (A%ril 12! 2"""#

FACTS: Petitioner and pri$ate respondent were candidates for PunongBarangay! The election was declared a failure and a special one wasscheduled! *gain, the election failed and was reset! 'owe$er, the $otingonly started at 4P" because of the pre$ailing tension in the locality! Pri$aterespondent was proclaimed the winner! Petitioner filed a petition with theC)"8L8C to declare the election as a failure alleging that no election wasconducted in the place and at the time prescribed by law! C)"8L8Cdismissed the petition!


12/33

HELD: The C ordered the conduct of a special election! The Court heldthat the peculiar set of facts in the present case show not merely a failureof election but the absence of a $alid electoral e-ercise! The place wherethe $oting was conducted was illegal! *s to the time of $oting, the lawpro$ides that the casting of $otes shall start at 5 in the morning and end at3 in the afternoon! The election officer did not follow the procedure laiddown by law for election postponement or suspension or the declaration ofa failure of election! The electorate was also not gi$en ample notice of thee-act schedule and $enue of the election!

$. Failure o) Election

Banaga v. OM$"$

G.R. NO. 134696 (*ul+ 31! 2"""#FACTS: Petitioner had filed a petition for declaration of failure of electionon grounds of $ote buying and glaring discrepancies in the election returns!The C)"8L8C dismissed the case declaring that the abo$e grounds donot fall within the scope of failure of election!

HELD: To warrant a declaration of failure of election, the commission offraud must be such that it pre$ented or suspended the holding of anelection, or fatally affected the preparation and transmission, custody andcan$ass of the election returns! These essential facts ought to ha$e beenalleged clearly by petitioner, but he did not!

Benito v. OM$"$ G.R. No. 134913 (*a- 19! 2""1#

FACTS: Benito and pri$ate respondent Pagayawan were 2 of >candidates $ying for the position of municipal mayor in Calanogas, Lanaodel ur during the "ay , 44> elections! < precincts clustered in the

ultan Disimban 8lementary chool were met with $iolence when some 3=armed men appeared at the school premises and fired shots into the air!This sowed panic among the $oters and elections officials, causing them toscatter in different directions! +t happened before noon at the day of election! * spot report reported the incident!

Both parties are contending contrary facts! Petitioner alleged that the$oting ne$er resumed e$en after the lawless elements left! )n the other hand, pri$ate respondent alleged that $oting resumed when the armed men


13/33

left around pm in the afternoon! Petitioner is only as%ing, howe$er, adeclaration of failure of elections on the first three precincts, not with theentire fi$e precincts! During the counting, the ballots from the threeprecincts were e-cluded! (e$ertheless, the winner was the pri$aterespondent! *nd e$en if the $otes from the three e-cluded precincts wereadded, pri$ate respondent still emerged as the winner!

Petitioner then filed a petition to declare failure of election and to calla special election! C)"8L8C howe$er denied the petition and affirmed theproclamation!

HELD : Petition Dismissed!! Two preconditions must e-ist before a failure of election may be declaredA

9 : no $oting has been held in any precinct due to force ma&eure, $iolenceor terrorism and 92: the $otes not cast therein are sufficient to affect the

results of the election! The cause of such failure may arise before or after the casting of $otes or on the day of the election!

2! 7hether there was a resumption of $oting is essentially a question of fact!uch are not proper sub&ects of inquiry in a petition for certiorari under #ule

;

3! Hoting in all fi$e precincts resumed after peace and order was re/established in the Disimban 8lementary chool! There was no ob&ection

raised to the count of $otes in the said two precincts during the counting of $otes at the counting center! o why a selecti$e ob&ection to the threeprecincts hereinI

6! Petitioner equates failure of elections to the low percentage of $otes cast$is/J/$is the number of registered $oters in the sub&ect election precincts!'owe$er, there can be a failure of election in a political unit only if the will of the ma&ority has been defiled and cannot be ascertained! But if it can bedetermined, it must be accorded respect! *fter all, there is no pro$ision inour election laws which requires that a ma&ority of registered $oters mustcast their $otes! *ll the law requires is that a winning candidate must beelected by a plurality of $alid $otes, regardless of the actual number of ballots cast!


14/33

persistent and continuous that it is impossible to distinguish what $otes arelawful and what are unlawful, or to arri$e at any certain result whatsoe$er,or that the great body of $oters ha$e been pre$ented by $iolence,intimidation and threats from e-ercising their franchise!

C. 0uris%iction to %eclare a )ailure o) elections

arlos v. AngelesG.R. No. 1429"7 (No,. 29! 2"""#

FACTS: Petitioner and pri$ate respondent were candidates for the positionof mayor of the municipality of Halen uela, "etro "anila 9later con$ertedinto a City: during the "ay , 44> elections! The Board of Can$assersproclaimed petitioner as the mayor! The pri$ate respondent filed an

election protest with the #TC! The court came up with re$ision reportswhich also showed that the petitioner got the highest number of$otes! (e$ertheless, in its decision, the trial court set aside the final tally of $alid $otes because of its finding of Ksignificant badges of fraud,K which itattributed to the present petitioner! The court then declared pri$aterespondent as the winner! The petitioner appealed to the C)"8L8C, andalso filed a petition to the C questioning the decision of the #TC! Thepri$ate respondent questioned the &urisdiction of the C!

HELD: Both the C and C)"8L8C ha$e concurrent &urisdiction to issuewrits of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus o$er decisions of trial courtsof general &urisdiction 9#TCs: in election cases in$ol$ing electi$e municipalofficials! The Court that ta%es &urisdiction first shall e-ercise e-clusi$e

&urisdiction o$er the case! #elati$e to the appeal that petitioner filed with theC)"8L8C, the same would not bar the present action as an e-ception tothe rule because under the circumstances, appeal would not be a speedyand adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law!

The power to nullify an election must be e-ercised with the greatest carewith a $iew not to disenfranchise the $oters, and only under circumstancesthat clearly call for such drastic remedial measure! "ore importantly, thetrial court has no &urisdiction to declare a failure of election! +t is theC)"8L8C en banc that is $ested with e-clusi$e &urisdiction to declare afailure of election! *ssuming that the trial court has &urisdiction to declare afailure of election, the e-tent of that power is limited to the annulment of theelection and the calling of special elections! The result is a failure of


15/33

election for that particular office! +n such case, the court cannot declare awinner!

III. Countin' () $allotsA. Countin' o) +otes

Villarosa vs. HR$#

G.R. No. 143351! Se%te&'er 14! 2"""

0*CT Auintos contested the proclamation of *melita Hillarosa! +ssueA whether

THE $otes should be counted in fa$or of Hillarosa! THE is the nic%nameof Hillarosa.s husband, who is the incumbent representati$e of )ccidental"indoro!

'8LDAHillarosa.s use of THE as her nic%name was a cle$er ploy to ma%e amoc%ery of the election process! '#8T did not commit gra$e abuse ofdiscretion in holding that the only issue for its determination was whetherK THK $otes or $ariations thereof should be counted in fa$or of H+LL*#) *and in ruling that such $otes are stray $otes!

olu'bres vs. OM$"$ G.R. No. 142"3$! Se%te&'er 1$! 2"""

Two issuesA 9 : 7hether the findings of fact of the C)"8L8C Di$ision,especially in matters of appreciation of ballots, is absolute and cannot bethe sub&ect of a motion for reconsideration before the C)"8L8C en banc 92: 7hether in appreciation of ballots, when a ballot is found to bemar%ed, absent any e$idence aliunde, there is the presumption that themar%ings were placed by a third person, and therefore, should notin$alidate the ballot!

' 8LD A9 : (o! 7hat is being challenged is not the sufficiency of e$idence but theappreciation thereof by the C)"8L8C Di$ision! +f the appreciation of theDi$ision is erroneous, there is the implication that such finding or ruling iscontrary to law and thus, may be a proper sub&ect of a motion for reconsideration!


16/33

92: (o! There is no such presumption in law! +nstead, the legal presumptionis that the sanctity of the ballot has been protected and preser$ed!The case was remanded bac% to the C)"8L8C en banc!

$. De)ects In $allot

(acris v. (agalila an Ad&. Matter No. R */9$/14"3 (August 14! 2"""#

FACTS: This case in$ol$es the election protest filed by the pri$aterespondent against the petitioner who was declared as mayor! The casewas decided in fa$or of the pri$ate respondent! Petitioner argues that therespondent in$alidated se$eral ballots cast in his fa$or due to undetachedupper stubs!

HELD: The C upheld the $alidity of the ballots! The Court declared thatthe $oters must not be disenfranchised because of the failure of theelection officials to perform their duties, one of which in$ol$es thedetachment of the upper stubs! *lso, a ballot should not be in$alidatedbecause it was not signed at the bac%

C. E))ect o) Failure to Aut enticate $allots

Malabaguio v. OM$"$ G.R. No. 1425"7 ( 0ece&'er 1! 2"""#

FACTS: Petitioner and pri$ate respondent were both candidates for theposition of Punong Barangay in Barangay 52, Maloo%an City! Pri$aterespondent was proclaimed as the duly elected Punong Barangay! Thepetitioner filed an election protest case with the "TC! The rendered a

&udgment declaring the petitioner as the winner! Pri$ate respondent filed acase with the C)"8L8C! The 2 nd Di$ision set aside the "TC.s decision,and declared the pri$ate respondent as the winner! * "otion for#econsideration was filed, but was denied by the C)"8L8C en banc! Thepetitioner now questions the disregarding of the


17/33

needed to $alidate the ballots! 'owe$er, the C ruled that +t is correct topostulate that administrati$e findings of facts are accorded great respect,and e$en finality when supported by substantial e$idence! (e$ertheless,when it can be shown that administrati$e bodies grossly misappreciatede$idence of such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion, this Court hasnot hesitated to re$erse their factual findings! 0actual findings of administrati$e agencies are not infallible and will be set aside when they failthe test of arbitrariness!E

The C)"8L8C has already promulgated a new set of rules which statesthat the failure to authenticate the ballots shall not in$alidate them! #ather,the Board of 8lection +nspectors shall merely note such failure in theminutes and declare the failure to authenticate the ballots as an electionoffense! Consequently, the absence of the ChairmenNs signature at the

bac% of the ballot should not be a reason to in$alidate the


18/33

+. Pre1Proclamation CasesA. Correction () Mani)est Errors

Angelia v. OM$"$ G.R. NO. 13946$ (MA 31! 2"""#

FACTS: Petitioner and pri$ate respondent were candidates for the positionof member of the angguniang Bayan! Petitioner was proclaimed as amember, ran%ing > th with 6 $otes more that the pri$ate respondent! Pri$aterespondent filed a petition to annul the proclamation presenting copies of8lection #eturns which showed a tally of 42 $otes for pri$ate respondentbut indicated a corresponding total in words and figures of only >2 $otes!There was also a copy which showed a tally of only 3 $otes for pri$aterespondent but indicated a corresponding total in words and figures of >

$otes! These copies were supported by affida$its from a poll cler% and thechairperson of the Board of 8lection +nspectors! C)"8L8C annulled theproclamation of petitioner! 'ence this petition!

HELD: +n accordance with the Court.s ruling in Castromayor $! C)"8L8C,the e-pedient action to ta%e is to direct the "unicipal Board of Can$assersto recon$ene and, after notice and hearing in accordance with #ule 25, 5of the C)"8L8C #ules of Procedure, to effect the necessary corrections, if any, in the election returns and, on the basis thereof, proclaim the winning

candidateFs!$. De)ective &eturns

2. Formal De)ectsOca'po v. OM$"$

326 SCRA 636 HELD: 0ormal defects are not grounds for e-cluding an election return!

3. Statisticall! Improbable &eturns

Vela!o v. OM$"$ G.R. NO. 135613 (Marc 9! 2"""#

FACTS: Petitioner and pri$ate respondent were candidates for mayor!Pri$ate respondent filed se$eral cases with the C)"8L8C! Petitioner wasproclaimed as mayor! C)"8L8C e- 'a-c issued a resolution annulling the


19/33

proclamation and declaring pri$ate respondent as the winner! 'ence thispetition!

HELD: tanding alone and without more, the bare fact that a candidate for public office recei$ed ero $otes in one or two precincts cannot adequatelysupport a finding that the sub&ect election returns are statisticallyimprobable! The doctrine on statistical improbability must be $iewedrestricti$ely, the utmost care being ta%en lest in penali ing the fraudulentand corrupt practices, innocent $oters become disenfranchised! "oreo$er,the doctrine in$ol$es a question of fact and a more prudential approachprohibits its determination e %arte !

Oca'po v. OM$"$ 325 SCRA 636

HELD: +f only one candidate obtained all the $otes in some precincts, thisis not sufficient to ma%e the election returns statistically improbable!

4. DuressSebastian v. OM$"$

327 SCRA 4"6 HELD: Duress cannot be raised as an issue in a pre/proclamation case!

+I. Election Contests

A.

Pa!ment o) Doc5et Fee$no7as v. +acott

322 SCRA 272 HELD: *n election protest should not be dismissed despite a deficiency inthe doc%et fee, because it in$ol$es public interest!

Soller v. OM$"$ G.R. No. 139$53 (Se%te&'er 5! 2"""#

HELD: *n election protest should be dismissed if the correct doc%et fee isnot paid!

$. +eri)ication

Soller v. OM$"$ G.R. NO. 139$53 (Se%te&'er 5! 2"""#


20/33

FACTS: This case in$ol$es an election protest filed by respondent againstpetitioner who was proclaimed as mayor! The protest included a $erificationstating that it was respondent who prepared the protest and, that he readand understood all its allegations!

HELD: The C declared the $erification as insufficient because of thefailure of respondent to state that the contents of the election protest aretrue, correct and of his personal %nowledge! The C held that the protestshould be considered as an unsigned pleading because of the lac% of theproper $erification!

C. Certi)icate () Absence () Forum S oppin'

Soller v. OM$"$

G.R. No. 139$53 (Se%te&'er 5! 2"""#HELD: 8lection protest should contain certificate of non/forum shopping!

Barroso v. A'pig G.R. NO. 13$21$ (Marc 17! 2"""#

FACTS: Petitioner and pri$ate respondent were candidates for mayor!Pri$ate respondent filed se$eral cases against the petitioner with theC)"8L8C! 'e also filed criminal complaints with the Law Department ofthe C)"8L8C! Petitioner was proclaimed the winner! Pri$ate respondentfiled an election protest with the #TC! )f the < cases which he hadpre$iously filed, he only mentioned the 3 as pending!

HELD: #ules of Ci$il Procedure generally do not apply to election cases,e-cept by analogy or in a suppletory character! 8lection contests aresub&ect to the C)"8L8C #ules of Procedure! #ule 3< which is applicablein this case, does not require that the petition contesting the election of amunicipal official be accompanied by a certification or any statementagainst forum shopping! *pplying the #ules of Ci$il Procedure suppletorily,the failure to comply with the non/forum shopping requirements does notautomatically warrant the dismissal of the case with pre&udice!

D. Motion To Dismiss

Maru)o' v. OM$"$ G.R. NO. 139397 (Ma+ 5! 2"""#


21/33

FACTS: Petitioner and pri$ate respondent were candidates for mayor!Because of se$eral irregularities, anomalies and electoral frauds, thepetitioner was illegally proclaimed as the winner! Petitioner filed a case withthe C)"8L8C to annul the proclamation, but later withdrew it! 'e also filedan election protest with the #TC! Petitioner orally mo$ed for dismissal ofthe protest, but it was denied! The court ordered the #e$ision Committee tocon$ene and start the re$ision of the ballots! Petitioner alleges that theC)"8L8C gra$ely abused its discretion in dismissing the petition!

HELD: The C held that the summary dismissal of petitioner.s "otion toDismiss was not a gra$e abuse of discretion by the C)"8L8C! The filingof the motion to dismiss, in fact, appears to be part of a perfidious plot topre$ent the early termination of the proceedings as e$idenced by aconfluence of e$ents clearly showing a pattern of delay employed by

petitioner to a$ert the re$ision ballots! *lso, a motion to dismiss is not aprohibited pleading in an election contest filed before the regular courts!

E. Certiorari

Beso v. Aballe326 SCRA 1""

HELD: The C)"8L8C has &urisdiction o$er a petition for certiorari inelection contests pending in the inferior courts!

F. Motion For &econsi%eration

olu'bres v. OM$"$ +.R. O. 8/29: 3Septe'ber :, /2224

FACTS: Petitioner filed an election protest against respondent who wasproclaimed as mayor! The #TC decided in fa$or of petitioner, but thedecision was re$ersed by the 2 nd Di$ision of the C)"8L8C in an appealfiled by respondent! Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration questioningthe decision of the di$ision to $alidate the mar%ed ballots cast in fa$or ofthe respondent! The "# was denied by the C)"8L8C e- 'a-c whichdeclared that findings of fact cannot be a sub&ect of an "#! 'ence thispetition!

HELD: *ny question on the sufficiency of the e$idence supporting theassailed ruling of a Di$ision is also a proper sub&ect for a motion forreconsideration!


22/33

6. E#ecution Pen%in' Appeal

*er'o v. OM$"$ G.R. NO. 14"179 (Marc 13! 2"""#

FACTS: Petitioner and pri$ate respondent were candidates for PunongBarangay! The latter was proclaimed as the winner! Petitioner filed anelection protest! The court ruled in fa$or of petitioner! Pri$ate respondentappealed this decision to C)"8L8C! Petitioner filed a motion for e-ecutionpending appeal which was granted by the court! The pri$ate respondentappealed this decision to the C)"8L8C, which the latter re$ersed! 'encethis petition!

HELD: C)"8L8C did not err in re$ersing the decision! )nly one ground

was used by petitioner to support his petition i!e! shortness of termE, whichthe C considered as insufficient! The order of C)"8L8C for the petitioner to relinquish his post to the pri$ate respondent pending final resolution ofthe appeal is a logical and necessary consequence of the denial ofe-ecution pending appeal!

+II. Election ())enses

A. 0uris%iction

;uan v. (eople322 SCRA 125 HELD: +t is the #TC which has &urisdiction o$er election offenses!

$. Proce%ure

"aurel v. (residing ;udge, R# Of ManilaG.R. NO. 13177$ (*a-uar+ 2$! 2"""#

C. ())enses2. Trans)er () 6overnment Emplo!ee

Regalado v. A9/1 S RA 1 <

FACTS: "ayor (a$arro appointed Barba as a nursing attendant! 7hen heran for mayor, the petitioner was appointed as )+C/mayor! Petitioner issueda memorandum informing Barba that she would be reassigned! This


23/33

transfer was made without prior appro$al of C)"8L8C! Barba filed acomplaint against petitioner for $iolation of 2; 9h: of the )mnibus8lection Code! Petitioner was later charged and con$icted of the offense!

HELD: +ndeed, appointing authorities can transfer or detail personnel, asthe e-igencies of public ser$ice require! 'owe$er, during election period, assuch personnel mo$ement could be used for electioneering or e$en toharass subordinates who are of different political persuasion, 2; 9h: ofthe )mnibus 8lection Code, as amended, prohibits the same unlessappro$ed by the C)"8L8C!

3. Carr!in' Firearm

a5a v. +ebusion A.M. NO. /9$/12$4 (Marc 3"! 2"""#

FACTS: Petitioner 9&udge: filed a complaint against pri$ate respondent9 heriff +H in the same court as petitioner: for $iolation of the Ci$il er$iceLaw, the 0irearms Law, and the )mnibus 8lection Code! +n addition,respondent was also accused of carrying a re$ol$er without a license andof threatening to %ill complainant for ha$ing filed the abo$e charges! *nin$estigation was conducted, and the respondent was found guilty ofse$eral of the charges!

HELD: The C ruled that respondent should be dismissed from ser$ice!)ne of the reasons is that by possessing a firearm without the necessarylicense, he committed a serious misconduct!

+III. PA&T71LIST S7STEM

+eterans Fe%eration Part! v. C(MELEC

6.&. ,o. 22489 2 ;(ctober 8/ 3


24/33

Thirty/eight defeated parties and organi ations promptly filed suit inthe C)"8L8C, pleading for their own proclamations! 'ence, C)"8L8Cordered the proclamation of the 3> parties! uch mo$e filled up the


25/33

G.R. No. 147179 (Marc 26!2""1#

FACTS:Consolidated cases regarding the #ight to uffrage! Petitioners are as%ingthe C)"8L8C to hold a special registration before the "ay 6, 2==General 8lection! *fter hearings, meetings and consultations, theC)"8L8C denied the request for special registration on the grounds 9 : itis against the law, and 92: impossibility! The case was ele$ated to C!

HELD:

! The right of suffrage is not at all absolute! +t is sub&ect to e-istingsubstanti$e and procedural requirements! *s to the procedural limitation,the right of a citi en to $ote is necessarily conditioned upon the process of

registration! The act of registration is an indispensable precondition to theright of suffrage! The tate, undoubtedly then, in the e-ercise of its inherentpolice power, may then enact laws to safeguard and regulate the act of $oter.s registration!

2! The period barring any registration before the general elections has itspurpose! +t is meant to complement the prohibiti$e period for filing petitionsfor e-clusion of $oters from the list! tated otherwise, if a specialregistration is conducted on a later date, the period for filing petitions for

e-clusion must li%ewise be ad&usted to a later date! +f not, then there can beno challenge to the $oter.s list! +t will then open the registration process toabuse!

3! Petitioners cannot also rely on the standby or residual powers of theC)"8L8C, under ec 2>, #!*! >63; Rwhich pro$ides that if the C)"8L8Ccannot obser$e the periods and dates prescribed by law for certain pre/election acts, it can fi- another periodS! ec 2> relies on the sound premisethat these certain pre/election acts are still capable of being reasonablyperformed $is/J/$is the remaining period before the date of election and theconduct of other related pre/election acti$ities required under the law!C)"8L8C has stressed that there is an operational impossibility inconducting the special registration such as the additional printing of theofficial ballots, election returns and other forms and paraphernalia!1ndergoing the long process of preparing for the elections would result inthe postponement of the elections to une =!


26/33

6! +t is an accepted doctrine in administrati$e law that the determination of administrati$e agency as to the operation, implementation and applicationof a law would be accorded great weight considering that these speciali edgo$ernment bodies are, by their nature and functions, in the best position to%now what they can possibly do or not do, under pre$ailing circumstances!

;! C)"8L8C, in denying the request of petitioners to hold a specialregistration, acted within the bounds and confines of the applicable law onthe matter! +t merely e-ercised a prerogati$e that chiefly pertains to it andone which squarely falls within the proper sphere of its constitutionally mandated powers!

U! Powers of the C)"8L8C

A'bil v. OM$"$ G.R. No. 14339$ (Octo'er 25! 2"""#

FACTS: Petitioner and pri$ate respondent were candidates for the positionof Go$ernor, 8astern amar during the "ay , 44> elections! ThePro$incial Board of Can$assers proclaimed petitioner as the duly elected

Go$ernor! Pri$ate respondent filed an election protest with the C)"8L8C,which was assigned to the 0irst Di$ision!

Commissioner U prepared and signed a proposed resolution in the case!Commissioner Q dissented, while Commissioner ? wanted to see bothpositions first before gi$ing her decision! )n 2F


27/33

HELD: The C dismissed the case for prematurity! +t ruled that it has nopower to re$iew $ia certiorari, an interlocutory order or e$en a finalresolution of a Di$ision of the Commission on 8lections! The instant casedoes not fall under any of the recogni ed e-ceptions to the rule in certioraricases dispensing with a motion for reconsideration prior to the filing of apetition! +n truth, the e-ceptions do not apply to election cases where amotion for reconsideration is mandatory by Constitutional fiat to ele$ate thecase to the Comelec en banc, whose final decision is what is re$iewable$ia certiorari before the upreme Court!

The C declared the resolution signed by Commissioner U as $oid for $arious reasons! 0irst, one who is no longer a member of the Commissionat the time the final decision or resolution is promulgated cannot $alidlyta%e part in that resolution or decision! econd, the Cler% of the st Di$ision

denied the release or promulgation of the resolution on 2F 6F== resolution!Third, the st Di$ision e$en later said that the parties should ignore theresolution since it was not yet promulgated! Lastly, Commissioner ? couldnot ha$e affi-ed her signature on the resolution, since on the same date anorder was issued where she said that she still wanted to see both positionsbefore ma%ing her decision!

Soller ,. COM 8 C G.R. NO. 139$53 (Se%te&'er 5! 2"""#

FACTS: Petitioner and pri$ate respondent 9 aulong: were both candidatesfor mayor of the municipality of Bansud, )riental "indoro in the "ay ,

44> elections! The petitioner was proclaimed as mayor by the municipalboard of can$assers! Pri$ate respondent filed a petition with theC)"8L8C to annul the proclamation! Later, pri$ate respondent filed anelection protest against petitioner with the #TC! The C)"8L8C dismissedthe pre/proclamation case filed by pri$ate respondent, while the #TCdenied petitionerNs motion to dismiss! Petitioner mo$ed for reconsiderationbut said motion was denied!

Petitioner then filed with the C)"8L8C a petitionfor certiorari contending that respondent #TC acted without or in e-cess of

&urisdiction or with gra$e abuse of discretion in not dismissing pri$aterespondentNs election protest! The C)"8L8C e- 'a-c dismissedpetitionerNs suit! Petitioner now questions this decision of the C)"8L8C enbanc!


28/33

HELD: The C has ruled in pre$ious cases that the C)"8L8C, sitting e-'a-c! does not ha$e the requisite authority to hear and decide electioncases including pre/proclamation contro$ersies in the first instance! Thispower pertains to the di$isions of the Commission! *ny decision by theCommission e- 'a-c as regards election cases decided by it in the firstinstance is null and $oid! +n the C.s $iew, the authority to resol$e petitionfor certiorari in$ol$ing incidental issues of election protest, li%e thequestioned order of the trial court, falls within the di$ision of the C)"8L8Cand not on the C)"8L8C e- 'a-c.

Salva v. Ma=alintal G.R. NO. 1326"3 (Se%te&'er 1$! 2"""#

FACTS: The petitioners filed with the #TC a class suit against the

angguniang Panglalawigan of Batangas, angguniang Pambayan ofCalaca, Batangas, and the C)"8L8C for annulment of )rdinance (o! =<and #esolution (o! 36< both enacted by the angguniang Panglalawiganof Batangas, and C)"8L8C #esolution (o! 24>5!

)rdinance (o! =< declared the abolition of Barangay an #afael and itsmerger with Barangay Dacanlao, municipality of Calaca, Batangas andaccordingly instructed the C)"8L8C to conduct the requiredplebiscite! #esolution (o! 36< affirmed the effecti$ity of )rdinance (o! =


29/33

the conduct of a plebiscite, pursuant to )rdinance (o! =< and #esolution(o! 36I. &ecall Election

Afiado vs. OM$"$ G.R. No. 1417$7 (Se%te&'er 1$! 2"""#

FACTS: The Preparatory #ecall *ssembly passed #esolution (o! for therecall of Hice/"ayor *melita (a$arro! The issue is whether an electi$eofficial who became City "ayor by legal succession can be the sub&ect of arecall election by $irtue of a Preparatory #ecall *ssembly #esolution thatwas passed when said electi$e official was still the Hice/"ayor!

HELD: The assumption by legal succession of the petitioner as the new"ayor of antiago City is a super$ening e$ent that rendered the recallproceeding against her moot and academic! * perusal of the said#esolution re$eals that the person sub&ect of the recall process is a specificelecti$e official in relation to her specific office!

P $LIC I,TE&,ATI(,AL LA-


30/33

A. E>T&ADITI(,

Secretar! of ;ustice v. Hon. "antion and Mar= ;i'ene% G.R. No. 139465! Octo'er 17! 2"""

overturning 322 SCRA 16" (*a-. 1$! 2"""#

By $irtue of an e-tradition treaty between the 1 and the Philippines,the 1 requested for the e-tradition of "ar% imene for $iolations of 1ta- and election laws! Pending e$aluation of the e-tradition documents bythe Philippine go$ernment, imene requested for copies of the 1 Ne-tradition request! The ecetary of ustice denied that request! + 18ADuring the e$aluation stage of the e-tradition proceedings, is pri$ate

respondent entitled to the two basic due process rights of notice andhearingI

HELD:Pri$ate respondent is bereft of the right to notice and hearing during

the e$aluation stage of the e-tradition process! 8-tradition is aproceeding sui ge-eris ! +t is not a criminal proceeding which will call intooperation all the rights of an accused guaranteed by the Bill of #ights! Theprocess of e-tradition does not in$ol$e the determination of the guilt or innocence of an accused! 'is guilt or innocence will be ad&udged in thecourt of the state where he will be e-tradited!

0isse-t (origi-al decisio-# 1nder the e-tradition treaty, the prospecti$ee-traditee may be pro$isionally arrested pending the submission of therequest! Because of this possible consequence, the e$aluation process isa%in to an administrati$e agency conducting an in$estigati$e proceeding,and parta%es of the nature of a criminal in$estigation! Thus, the basic dueprocess rights of notice and hearing are indispensable!

*ssuming that the e-tradition treaty does not allow for such rights, the

Constitutional right to procedural due process must o$erride treatyobligations! 7hen there is a conflict between international law obligationsand the Constitution, the Constitution must pre$ail!

$. C(,FLICTS $ET-EE, I,TE&,ATI(,AL LA- A,D PHILIPPI,ELA-


31/33

Secretar! of ;ustice v. Hon. "antion and Mar= ;i'ene% 322 SCRA 16" (*a-. 1$! 2"""#

The obser$ance of our countryNs duties under a treaty is compelledby, first, the principle of %acta su-t ser,a-da 9the obligation to %eep their agreement in good faith:, and seond by the ConstitutionNs doctrine of incorporation, as the Constitution pro$ides that the generally acceptedprinciples of international law form Kpart of the law of the land!K 1nder thedoctrine of incorporation, rules of international law form part of the law of the land and no further legislati$e action id needed to ma%e such rulesapplicable in the domestic sphere! Thus, a treaty obligation has the forceand effect of a statute, and is gi$en equal treatment with the latter! TheConstitution, as the upreme law of the Land, may in$alidate a treaty

inconsistent with it, as it does in case of an unconstitutional statute! +n thecase of a conflict between a treaty and a statute, the principle of le

%osterior derogat %riori appliesWa treaty may repeal a prior statute, and alater statute may repeal an e-isting treaty!

C. E* AL P&(TECTI(, ,DE& THE C(,STIT TI(, A,DI,TE&,ATI(,AL LA-

International Sc)ool Alliance of $ducators v. >uisu'bing and International Sc)ool G.R. No. 12$$45 (*u-e 1! 2"""#

+nternational chool 9+ : pays its teachers who are hired from abroad,or foreign/hires, a higher salary than its local/hires, whether the latter are0ilipino or not 9most are 0ilipino, but some are *merican:! +t &ustifies thisunder the Ndislocation factorN that foreigners must be gi$en a higher salaryboth to attract them to teach here, and to compensate them for theKsignificant economic disad$antagesK in$ol$ed in coming here! TheTeacherNs 1nion cries discrimination!

' 8LD A Discrimination e-ists! 8qual pay for equal wor% is a principal longhonored in this &urisdiction, as it rests on fundamental norms of &ustice

! *rt! U+++, ec! of the Constitution 9 ocial ustice and 'uman #ights:e-horts Congress to gi$e the highest priority to the enactment of measures


32/33

that protect and ennhance the right od all people to human dignity, reducesocial, economic, and political inequalitites!K The Constitution also pro$idesthat labor is entitled to Khumane conditions of wor%!K! These conditions arenot restricted to the physical wor%place, but include as well the manner bywhich employers treat their employees! Lastly, the Constitution directs the

tate to promote Kequality of employment opportunities for all,K KVregardless of se-, race, or creed!K +t would be an affront to both the spiritand the letter of these pro$isions if the tate closes its eyes to unequal anddiscriminatory terms and conditions of employment!

2! +nternational law, which springs from general principles of law, li%ewiseproscribes discrimination! General principles of law include principles of equity, i!e!, fairness and &ustice, based on the test of what isreasonable! The 1ni$ersal Declaration of 'uman #ights and numerousother international Con$entions all embody the general principle against

discrimination, the $ery antithesis of fairness and &ustice! The Philippines,through its Constitution, has incorporated this principle as part of itsnational laws!

D. T&EATIES +S. E>EC TI+E A6&EEME,TS

Ba!an v. &a'oraG!#! (o! 3>


33/33

regarding the use of terms in the present Con$ention are without pre&udiceto the use of those terms, or to the meanings which may be gi$en to themin the internal law of the tate!KThus, in international law, there is no difference between treaties ande-ecuti$e agreements in their binding effect upon states concerned, aslong as the negotiating functionaries ha$e remained within their powers!+nternational law continues to ma%e no distinction between treaties ande-ecuti$e agreementsA they are equally binding obligations upon nations!

+n our &urisdiction, we ha$e recogni ed the binding effect of e-ecuti$eagreements e$en without the concurrence of the enate or Congress!+nCo&&issio-er o) Custo&s ,s. aster- Sea radi-g , we saidAK! ! ! theright of the 8-ecuti$e to enter into binding agreements without thenecessity of subsequent Congressional appro$al has been confirmed bylong usage! 0rom the earliest days of our history we ha$e entered into

e-ecuti$e agreements co$ering such sub&ects as commercial and consular relations, most/fa$ored/nation rights, patent rights, trademar% and copyrightprotection, postal and na$igation arrangements and the settlement of claims! The $alidity of these has ne$er been seriously questioned by our courts!E

political law digests 2 from internet.docx

Documents