Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan and Zaldivar vs. Hon. Raul Gonzalez, claiming to be and acting as Tanodbayan-Ombudsman under the 1987 Constitution
Nature: Petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to review the decision of the Sandiganbayan
Facts:
• Enrique Zaldivar, governor of the province of Antique
• Sought to restrain the Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan Raul Gonzalez
• From proceeding with the prosecution and hearing of criminal cases filed against him • On the ground that said cases were filed by the Tanodbayan.
• The 1987 Consti provided that it is only the Ombudsman who has the authority to file cases with the Sandiganbayan.
Issue: WON Tanodbayan had authority to file those cases for Sandiganbayan to prosecute and hear.
Held: NO Ratio:
1. Under the 1987 Consti, the Ombudsman (distinguished from Tanodbayan) is charged with the duty to:
Section 13, par 1: Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.
2.
The Tanodbayan of the 1973 Consti became the Office of the Special prosecutor that shall continue to function and exercise it powers as now or hereafter may be provided by law, except those conferred on the Office of the Ombudsman created under the Consti. (article 11, section 7)3. Thus, beginning on February 2, 1987, the authority to conduct preliminary investigations and direct the filing of criminal cases with the Sandiganbayan was vested on the Ombudsman.
4. The Tanodbayan is now the subordinate of the Sandiganbayan and it can investigate and prosecute cases only upon the latter’s authority or orders.
Office of the Tanodbayan: created by PB 1607
GRANTED; GONZALEZ ORDERED TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM CONDUCTING INVESTIGATIONS AND FILING CRIMNIAL CASES WITH THE SANDIGANBAYAN OR OTHERWISE EXERCISNG THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE OMBUDSMAN
Inting vs. Tanodbayan (1980 case)
Nature: Petition fro certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction and restraining order Facts:
1.
Inting filed complaints for perjury at the City Fiscal of Davao’s office, against Angelina S. Salcedo (in latter’s personal data sheets, she indicated that she completed the 1-year Secretarial Science course at USC in Cebu although she never enrolled in, and neither did she complete the course) Salcedo is an appurtenant of the judicial staff of the City Court of Davao2. City Fiscal of Davao thru Special Counsel Rodrigo R. Duterte conducted preliminary investigation.
3. found prima facie case for perjury and filed 3 separate counts of perjury under article 183 of RPC
4. Salcedo interposed appeal to the ministry of Justice.
5. Ministry of Justice forwarded records to Tanodbayan, pursuant to Section 10 (f) of the PD No. 1630, which vests on the latter the power to file and prosecute offenses committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office.
6. Tanodbayan Vicente Ericta reversed decision of City Fiscal.
7. directed city fiscal to move for dismissal of the 3 criminal cases for perjury against Salcedo
Issue: WON Tanodbayan has jurisdiction and authority to review and nullify the resolutions of the City Fiscal of Davao
Held: Yes Ratio:
1.
Tanodbayan has authority to file and prosecute Salcedo’s case even if it does not involve graft and corrupt offices because it falls under such other offenses covered by section 10 (f) of PD 16302. Act of perjury was in relation to Salcedo’s office. Section 18 of PD 1630 gives Tanodbayan authority to conduct investigations and file case for such occurrence. 3. Tanodbayan therefore had authority to nullify and review resolutions of the City Fiscal
of Davao as the case involved the actions of a government official related to his office. PETITION DISMISSED.
Orap, Vicente vs. Sandiganbayan represented by Justices Manuel Pamaran, Fernandez, and Escareal (1985 case)
Nature: Petition for certiorari and prohibition to review the decision of the Sandiganbayan Facts:
• Tanodbayan Special Prosecutor Rodolfo Aquino
• Charged Vicente Orap, presiding judge of the Municipal Court of Mangatarem, Pangasinan
• With violation of Section 39e) of Rep Act 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
• Juan Sison, then Chief Special prosecutor of the Tanodbayan approved information and the latter was docketed as Crim. Cases Nos. SB-020, 021, 022.
• Clerk of Court, Melanio Fernandez was also charged.
• Orap contended that Tanodbayan had no power to conduct preliminary investigations, file infos, and prosecute criminal cases against judges and their appurtenant judicial staff.
Alleged crime of Orap: took sums of money from several persons in connection with the case of People vs. Pepito Iglesias, for reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide, serious physical injuries and damage to property
Issue Held/Ratio
WON Tanodbayan has authority to conduct
preliminary investigation of the complaint NO.As Ombudsman, his investigatory powers are limited to complaints initiated against offices and personnel of administrative agencies as defined in Section 9(a) of PD 1607.
WON Tanodbayan had authority to file corresponding information before the Sandiganbayan and prosecute the same
YES.
As prosecutor, the authority of the Tanodbayan is plenary and without exceptions.
Section 17 of PD 1607 empowers special
Powers of Tanodbayan: PD 1603
Section 10 (a) he may investigate, on complaint by any person or on his own motion or initiative, any administrative act
whether amounting to any criminal offense or not of any administrative agency including any GOCC.
(f) he may file and prosecute civil and administrative cases involving graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses
committed by public officers and employees, including those in GOCC, in relation to their office.
prosecutors exclusive authority to conduct preliminary investigation of all cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.
Section 19 gave the Office of the Chief Special Prosecutor power to investigate employees and officials who act in a manner warranting criminal or disciplinary action
PETITION DISMISSED.
Tanodbayan has jurisdiction to investigate and file information.
Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction to prosecute defined under section 4 of PD 1606.
Nixon: PRESIDENCY
In the White House, the contradictions in Nixon were most obvious. He could be bold, yet also cautious; effective, yet often inept. Working closely with his national security advisor (later, secretary of state), Henry KISSINGER, he forsook the anti-Communist policies that he had supported throughout most of his career in favor of DETENTE with the USSR and rapprochement with the Communist government of China. In 1969 he began the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) with the Soviet Union. In February 1972 he made a historic trip to Beijing--where he was received by Mao Zedong--thus reversing the U.S. policy of not recognizing the Communist government. In 1973, after 4 years of waging war in Vietnam--including heavy bombing raids on North Vietnam (1972) and the invasion (1970) of Cambodia--the administration managed to arrange a cease-fire that would last long enough to permit U.S. withdrawal from the Indochinese war zone. After the Arab-Israel War in 1973, the efforts of Henry Kissinger led to a cease-fire and troop disengagement in the Middle East.
Domestically, under the banner of "A New Federalism," Nixon attempted to shift important elements of governmental power and responsibility back to state and local governments. He cut back and opposed federal welfare services, proposed antibusing legislation, and used wage-and-price controls to fight inflation. A combination of domestic and international developments, notably the quintupling of oil prices by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in 1973, led to the economic recession of 1974-75.
In 1972, Nixon swept to an overwhelming victory in the presidential election against his Democratic challenger Sen. George S. MCGOVERN--but, ironically, the seeds of political collapse had already been sown. During the campaign, a group of burglars working for the Committee to Re-elect the President broke into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate office-apartment complex in Washington, D.C., apparently in search of political intelligence. Attempts by the White House to stop or frustrate the ensuing investigations ultimately failed when Nixon's own White House tape recordings revealed that the president and his assistants had engaged in an obstruction of justice.
In the meantime he had been forced to drop Vice-President Spiro T. AGNEW, who resigned in October 1973 after he was charged with corruption that began during his tenure as Baltimore County executive. As the revelations of wrongdoing piled up, Nixon became preoccupied with preserving his presidency. He jettisoned top assistants in the White House and fired Special Prosecutor Archibald COX. After the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, required that he supply Cox's successor, Leon JAWORSKI, with tape recordings of conversations with his advisors, the House Judiciary Committee voted to recommend (July 27-30, 1974) approval by the full House of three articles of impeachment against the president. On Aug. 9, 1974, Nixon resigned his office and was succeeded by Vice-President Gerald R. FORD, whom he had selected to replace Agnew. A month after Nixon's resignation, Ford pardoned him for any crimes he might have committed as president. Nixon accepted the pardon but insisted that his mistakes had been personal and political, not criminal.
Watergate is the popular name for the political scandal and constitutional crisis that began with the arrest (June 17, 1972) of five burglars who broke into Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office building in Washington, D.C. It ended with the resignation (Aug. 9, 1974) of President Richard M. NIXON.
The burglars and two co-plotters--G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt--were indicted (September 1972) on charges of burglary, conspiracy, and wiretapping. Four months later, they were convicted and sentenced to prison terms by District Court Judge John J. Sirica, who was convinced that pertinent details had not been unveiled during the trial and proffered leniency in exchange for further information. As it became increasingly evident that the Watergate burglars were tied closely to the Central Intelligence Agency and the Committee to Re-elect the President (CRP), some of Nixon's aides began talking to federal prosecutors. The defection of aides such as Jeb Stuart Magruder, assistant to CRP director John N. MITCHELL, quickly implicated others in Nixon's inner circle. The Senate established (February 1973) an investigative committee headed by Sen. Sam ERVIN, Jr., to look into the growing scandal. Amid increasing disclosures of White House involvement in the Watergate break-in and its aftermath, Nixon announced the resignations of John Ehrlichman and H. R. Haldeman, two of his closest advisors, and the dismissal of his counsel John W. Dean III.
Growing suspicion of presidential involvement in the scandal resulted in an intensification of the investigation. Leaders in this inquiry included Judge Sirica, reporters for the Washington Post, the Ervin committee, and Archibald COX, who was sworn in as special prosecutor in May 1973. Dean told the Ervin committee in June that Nixon had known of the cover-up. A month later, former White House staff member Alexander Butterfield revealed that Nixon had secretly tape-recorded conversations in his offices. Both Cox and the Ervin committee began efforts to obtain selected tapes. Nixon, citing EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, refused to relinquish them and tried to have Cox fired. On Oct. 20, 1973, Attorney General Elliot L. Richardson, refusing to dismiss Cox, resigned in protest. His deputy, William Ruckelshaus, also refused and was fired. Nixon's solicitor general, Robert H. Bork, who was next in command, then fired Cox. The "Saturday night massacre," as the events of that evening became known, heightened suspicions that Nixon had much to hide.
Leon Jaworski, who replaced Cox as special prosecutor on November 1, continued to press for the tapes. On Mar. 1, 1974, a federal grand jury indicted seven men, including Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell, and White House special counsel Charles Colson, for conspiracy to obstruct justice. At the same time, the House Judiciary Committee began investigating the Watergate affair and related matters.
The president released (April 30) edited transcripts--containing suspicious gaps--of Watergate-related Oval Office conversations. Not satisfied, Judge Sirica subpoenaed additional tapes. When Nixon refused, the case moved to the Supreme Court, which ruled (July 24) against him by an 8-0 vote. The Court conceded that a president could withhold national security material but insisted that Watergate was a criminal matter (see UNITED STATES V. RICHARD M. NIXON). On July 27-30, the House Judiciary Committee, whose public hearings had disclosed evidence of illegal White House activities, recommended that Nixon be impeached on three charges: obstruction of justice, abuse of presidential powers, and trying to impede the impeachment process by defying committee subpoenas. The committee rejected two other possible counts: Nixon's unauthorized, secret bombing of Cambodia in 1969 and his use of public funds to improve his private property.
A beleaguered President Nixon released three tapes to the public on Aug. 5, 1974. One revealed that he had taken steps to thwart the FBI's inquiry into the Watergate burglary. The tape made it clear that Nixon had been involved actively in the cover-up from its beginnings. These disclosures destroyed the president's remaining congressional support. With House impeachment inevitable and Senate conviction probable, Richard Nixon became (Aug. 9, 1974) the first U.S. chief executive to resign.
Clinton vs. Jones
Nature: Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit
Facts:
• May 8, 1991, during an official conference at the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas where Clinton was governor.
• Danny Ferguson, former Arkansas State Police, persuaded her to leave her desk (registration) and to visit the Governor in a business suite at the hotel.
• There, Clinton allegedly made abhorrent sexual advances that she vehemently rejected.
• Subsequently, her superiors at work shanged her duties to ounish her for rejecting those advances.
• Jones sought actual damamges of $75,000 and punitive damages of $100,000 • Clinton filed a motion to dismiss on grounds of presidential immunity.
Issue: WON Clinton could claim presidential immunity for unofficial acts performed before he became president of the USA.
Held: NO Ratio:
1. Presidential immunity can only be claimed if the President was performing an official act.
2. Allowing the trial to proceed will not prejudice the function of the President.
a. His testimonies for discovery and for use at trial may be taken at the White House
b. Such shall be acquired at a time that will accommodate his busy schedule c. The President may choose not to be present at the trial.
3. The President cannot claim immunity from suits for money damages because in this particular case, the suit did not arise out of his official act.
4. Immunities are grounded in the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it.
5. Delaying the trial would increase the danger of prejudice resulting from the loss of evidence, including the inability off witnesses to recall specific facts, or the possible death of a party.
The Federal District Court has jurisdiction to decide this case. Like every other citizen who properly invokes that jurisdiction, respondent has a right to an orderly disposition of her claims. Accordingly, the judgment of the COA is affirmed.
Contents of Jones’ complaint:
1. Clinton deprived her of rights protected by the Constitution.
2. Clinton and Ferguson engaged in a conspiracy to violate her federal rights. 3. state common-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress
4. for defamation, embracing both the comments allegedly made to the press by Ferguson and the statements of petitioner’s agents.
In Re. Raul M. Gonzalez
Nature: In re 1st Indorsement from Honorable Raul M. Gonzalez dated March 16, 1988
requesting Hon. Judge Marcelo Fernan to Comment on an Anonymous Letter-Complaint Facts:
An anonymous letter by Concerned Employees of the Supreme Court was addressed to Hon. Raul Gonzalez.
Contents of the letter:
• charges of disbarment brought by Mr. Miguel Cuenco against Justice Marcelo Fernan • a request for Mr. Raul M. Gonzalez as Tanodbayan/Special Prosecutor to do something
about the case February 12, 1988
Contents of the resolution:
• dismiss the charges made by Cuenco against Fernan
• require Cuenco to show cause why he should not be administratively dealt with for making such unfounded accusations
Issue: WON a member of the Supreme Court can be charged with disbarment during his incumbency
Held: NO Ratio:
Article 8, section7, par 1 and article 9, section2 provide:
That members of the Supreme Court who are members of the Philippine bar may be removed from office only by impeachment.
1. Such public officer cannot be charged criminally before the Sandiganbayan or any other court with any offense which carries with it a penalty of removal from office, or any penalty service of which would amount to removal from office.
2. To grant a complaint for disbarment of a Member of the Court during the Member’s incumbency would circumvent the constitutional mandate that Members of the Court may be removed from office
• only by impeachment
• and conviction of certain offenses listed in Article 11 (2) of Consti o culpable violation of the Constitution
o treason o bribery o graft o corruption o high crimes
o betrayal of public trust
Proper remedy for offending members of the SC who are members of the Philippine bar: 1. impeachment under sections 2 and 3 of article 11 of 1987 Consti
2. when tenure is terminated by impeachment, he may be held liable to answer wither: a. criminally or
b. administratively (by disbarment proceedings)
• for any wrong or misbehavior that may be proven against him in appropriate proceedings
The Clerk of Court is hereby DIRECTED to serve a copy of this Resolution upon Hon. Raul Gonzalez and Mr. Miguel Cuenco.
In re Jarque Nature:
Facts:
• November 18, 1995: letter by Cpt. Jose Rene N. Jarque, sworn to before Notary Public Atty. Aida Balbastro: complaint of disbarment against Ombudsman Aniano Desierto for “immorality and involvement in various illegal and immoral activities.
• The letter alleged that Desierto has an illegitimate daughter with Teresita Alferez by the name of Desiree.
Issue: WON the Court can make out a prima facie case for disbarment against Desierto based on such letter-complaint.
Held: NO Ratio:
1. The letter made very general allegations made y other, unknown and unnamed sources.
2. Even if the letter-complaint had succeeded in making out such a prima facie case, the Court would still have to dismiss the complaints.
Article 8, section7, par 1 and article 9, section2 provide:
That members of the Supreme Court who are members of the Philippine bar may be removed from office only by impeachment.
3. Such public officer cannot be charged criminally before the Sandiganbayan or any other court with any offense which carries with it a penalty of removal from office, or any penalty service of which would amount to removal from office.
4. To grant a complaint for disbarment of a Member of the Court during the Member’s incumbency would circumvent the constitutional mandate that Members of the Court may be removed from office
• only by impeachment
• and conviction of certain offenses listed in Article 11 (2) of Consti o culpable violation of the Constitution
o treason o bribery o graft o corruption o high crimes
o betrayal of public trust
Proper remedy for offending members of the SC who are members of the Philippine bar: 3. impeachment under sections 2 and 3 of article 11 of 1987 Consti
4. when tenure is terminated by impeachment, he may be held liable to answer wither: a. criminally or
b. administratively (by disbarment proceedings)
• for any wrong or misbehavior that may be proven against him in appropriate proceedings
Ocampo, IV vs. Ombudsman Nature: Petition for review of the memorandum of the Ombudsman Facts:
• November 27 1991: The Ombudsman issued a memorandum to the Office of the Special Prosecutor disapproving the recommendation of the special prosecutors (Roger Berbano, Sr. and Rodolfo Reynoso) that the criminal cases filed against Gov. Mariano Un Ocampo III and his sons Mariano Ocampo IV be dismissed and that corresponding motions to withdraw them be filed with the Sandiganbayan.
What did they do?
Marino Ocampo III, governor of Tarlac and president-chairman of the BOT of the Lingkod Tarlac Foundation, Inc. in connivance with his son, loaned amount of money out of the National Aid for LG funds of Tarlac to the New Territory Manufacturing Inc (then IMCOR) of which the son was incorporator and stockholder, under terms and conditions grossly disadvantageous to the government the same being interest-free, without collateral, and without a definite date of repayment.
Issue: WON the Ombudsman has authority to order for the investigation to proceed despite the recommendations of the special prosecutors to dismiss the same
Held: Yes. Ratio:
1. The Courts cannot interfere with the discretion of the Ombudsman to determine the specificity and adequacy of the averments of the offense charged.
2. His actions were neither whimsical nor capricious because he sincerely believed that there is sufficient evidence to indict both accused. Such rule is based not only upon
respect of for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Consti to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well.
3. But take note: once a case has been filed with the Sandiganbayan, such court will have full control of the case so much that the information may not be dismissed without approval of the said court.
Additional info:
Criminal prosecutions may not be restrained, either through preliminary or final injunction or a writ of prohibition, except in the following instances:
1. to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;
2. when necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions;
3. when there is a pre-judicial question which is sub-judice; 4. when the acts of the office are without or in excess of authority 5. where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance, or regulation 6. when double jeopardy is clearly apparent
7. where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense 8. where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution
9. where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by lust for vengeance
10. when there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied
11. preliminary injunction to prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of petitioners.
Venus vs. Desierto
Nature: Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. Prohibition Facts:
Petitioner: Municipal Mayor of Aklan
Respondents: Mars Regalado and Harry Abayon, members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Aklan Events:
September 2, 1988: Resolution 19 was passed authorizing petitioner to negotiate and enter into a contract with the Board of Liquidators in the Acquisition of the Garcia-Diapo Enterprise September 6, 1988: petitioner proceeded to Manila and submitted to Wenceslao Buenaventura, Director and gen. Manager of the BOL and offered to buy the lot on a government-to-government basis at a price mutually acceptable to the parties
September 8, 1988:
• offer was rejected. ]
• Petitioner returned to New Washington and submitted to treasurer his voucher for transpo expenses
• Asked Atty. Antonio Tabang, provincial auditor, as regards the municipality’s participation in a public bidding.
• SB doubted whether NW can participate in the bidding
September 19, 1988: petitioner went to manila at his personal expense and participated in the bidding.
He submitted the highest bid and thus the property was sold to him and a deed of absolute sale was executed.
During his term, he allowed a portion of the lots to be used as garage for the municipality’s fire truck and for the municipality’s mushroom culture laboratory
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Kalibo, Aklan
• Private respondents then filed complaint and charged petitioner with violation of
• Paragraph (h) of section 3 of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) as amended.
• dismissed the complaint on the ground that there existed no case for violation of paragraph (h) of section 3 of RA 3019 as amended
Ombudsman Conrado Vasquez: • disapproved resolution
• marginal note: to consider possible liability of petitioner for a violation of mentioned act since there is pervading showing of bad faith on the part of petitioner in maneuvering to acquire for himself a piece of property which he himself knew to be badly needed by the municipality
Reraffled to Graft Investigation Officer I Carla Tanco of Office of Deputy Ombudsman: • found prima facie evidence to proceed against petitioner
• Deputy Ombudsman of Visayas approved. Office of Special Prosecutor Officer III Orlando Ines:
• found reasonable ground to charge Eriberto Venus of the violation • Deputy Special Prosecutor Robert E. kallos recommended Ines’ resolution • Special prosecutor Leonardo Tamayo concurred
• Ombudsman Desierto approved. • Info was filed with Sandiganbayan
• Petitioner filed a motion for recon with Victor Pascual, Special Prosecutor (found out that petitioner had not violated said act and then recommended that the case be dismissed)
• Ombudsman disapproved
Issue: WON the Ombudsman can reinvestigate a case already filed with the Sandiganbayan Held: Yes
Ratio:
1. The Sandiganbayan allowed petitioner to file motion to reconsider the adverse resolution of Special Prosecutor Ines.
2. Thru this, Sandiganbayan thus deferred to the authority of the Ombudsman to reinvestigate the case and further assess or re-examine the facts.
3. The Sandiganbayan was willing to accept and adopt the final resolution of the Officer of the Special Prosecutor and Ombudsman on the issue of whether of not the offense charged was in fact committed by the petitioner
Crim. case dismissed: lack of reasonable ground to believe that petitioner violated said act. Ynchausti & Co. vs Wright
Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court Ben F. Wright: Auditor of the Philippine Islands
Ynchausti & Co: agent and operator of Venus: used in the coastwise trade of the Phil Islands Facts:
• Ynchausti & Co, agent and operator of steamship Venus, used in the coastwise trade of the Philippine Islands
• They acquired services in Hong Kong for the repair and reconstruction of the ship (repair and overhaul of the thrust shaft and boilers)
• There were no adequate facilities in the Philippines to achieve such purpose. • Upon Venus’ return to the Philippines,
• The Insular Collector of Customs asked petitioners to pay customs duty payable on such repairs and reconstruction work.
• Petitioner paid said amount under protest.
• Petitioner claimed that such repairs and works should be exempted from the payment of customs duty under
• Par 200, section 8, and par. 348, section 11 of the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909.
• After hearing the Internal Collector of Customs sustained the protest and ordered the refund of the money through a warrant for Auditor Wright to sign in approval.
• Wright refused to sign such.
Issue: WON countersignature of the COA may be compelled if it can be shown that: 1) the warrant has been legally drawn by the officer authorized by law to do so 2) and appropriation to which the warrant may be applied exists by virtue of law 3) an unexpended balance of the amount appropriated is available.
Held: YES
Ratio: The duty to countersign the warrant in this case is simply ministerial and it is not up to the discretion of the Auditor to decide otherwise.
It was then necessary to find out if the 3 requisites needed to compel COA to countersign warrant for refund were present in the case at bar.
Requisite Status
1. WON warrant has been legally drawn by the officer authorized by law to do so
2. WON Venus and the repairs it undertook were exempted from customs duty
YES.
• The Collector of Customs was given the authority to investigate WON such repairs undertaken by the operators of Venus were necessary and such would exempt them from customs duty. • Representatives from several
Philippine firms testified that the nature of the repair and overhaul needed by Venus could not be done in the Philippines due to lack of needed facilities.
• Since it was found out that such repairs were needed and that the Tariff law does exempt them from customs duty, the Collector of Customs was authorized by law to issue a warrant to be countersigned by the COA so that the petitioners can be refunded for the amount paid.
YES. Act of Congress of 1901 as amended by Act No. 2872 of the Philippine Legislature
• provides that repairs made in foreign countries to vessels shall be subject to provisions in par 348 of the Tariff law if it could be shown that:
• such repairs can only be done • in a foreign country
• reasonably • economically
• and within reasonable time 3. WON the law provides appropriations for
the asked refund YES. Act No. 357 as amended by Act No. 1515 provides: • that to meet refunds of customs duties
or taxes
• erroneously and illegally collected • by the Philippine Government,
• permanent annual appropriations are provided
• Countersigning of COA of a warrant legally executed
• Is a ministerial function of the Insular Auditor
• The writ of mandamus is the proper remedy to compel an official to perform and official duty
Matute vs. Hernandez Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court
Jaime Hernandez: Auditor General of the Commonwealth of the Philippines Facts:
• December 24, 1936: Matute entered into a contract with the Commonwealth of the Philippines
• Through its Purchasing Agent
• With the consent and approval of it Secretary of Finance
• To supply government with fresh meat (hindquarters and brisket, boneless) • For the entire month of January 1937.
• Subsequently, the City of Manila raised the fees in the municipal slaughterhouse from 2 to 3 and ½ cents per kilo.
• Petitioner asked Purchasing Agent that the price for the meat he offered to supply for government be raised by 1 and ½ cents also.
• CE Unson, technical adviser to the President and Acting Purchasing Agent
• Granted request with the approval of Undersecretary of Finance Guillermo Gomez. • Subsequently, petitioner supplied and delivered meat to Bureau of Prisons.
• However when the treasury warrant was sent to the Auditor general, he refused to countersign it.
• Petitioner wanted court to compel auditor general to sign and consequently cash in due amount.
Issues Held/Ratio
1. WON Auditor General has the right and power to judge the merits and legality of any contract entered into by the Commonwealth of the Philippines through the Purchasing Agent
YES. Section 2 of Article 10:
• Auditor General has the duty to bring to the attention of the proper administrative officers expenditure of funds or property, which, in his opinion, are irregular, unnecessary, excessive, or extravagant.
• Auditor General had to find out WON disbursement was illegal. (discretionary power, as opposed to Wright case where the countersigning was a ministerial duty)
2. WON the raise of prices in the City of
the requirements of EO No. 16 • No public bidding had been held • Auditor-General, Secretary of Justice,
or the Secretary of the dept was not consulted
• Approval of the President was not obtained
Guevara vs. Gimenez Pedro Gimenez: Auditor General of the Philippines
Ismael Mathay: Auditor of the Central Bank Guillermo Guevara: petitioner
Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court. Mandamus. Facts:
• Governor of Central bank, Miguel Cuaderno asked petitioner • To cooperate with the legal counsel of CB
• In defending CB and its Monetary Board in Civil Case 41226 • Filed against them by one R. Marino Corpus.
• Accordingly, petitioner entered his appearance as counsel for the respondents.
• Resolution No. 1283 of the Monetary Board recognized the designation and provided that the Governor arrange with Guevara the amount of fee which the latter will charge the CB for handling the said cases.
Issue: WON CB’s governor’s designation of Guevara was a violation of Section 1664 of the Revised Administrative Code, which vests on the Solicitor General the power to employ special counsel
Held: NO Ratio:
1. Petitioner was retained not by the government of the Philippines but by the CB, which has a personality distinct and separate from that of the govt
2. He did not appear in the case as representative of the Solicitor General
Issue: WON Auditor General may now be compelled to pass in audit and approve the payment of the amounts claimed by the petitioner
Held: YES Ratio:
The Auditor General has the duty to approve and pass in audit the voucher for said disbursements, if issued by the proper officer of said agency of the Government.
Since under the law, the Governor of the CB with its Monetary may employ special legal counsel and approve payments for his services, the Auditor General has the duty to disburse said amounts.
Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS Facts:
In view of the government’s efforts at privatization, GSIS sold its Manila Hotel shares (51%) at a bidding where only two parties participated: (1) Renong Berhad , a Malaysian firm
and (2) Manila Prince Hotel Corporation, a Filipino firm.
Manila Prince offered a bid P2.40 lower than Renong Berhad’s (bidding was on a price per share basis). Pending confirmation of Renong Berhad as the winner, Manila Prince wrote GSIS to enjoin it from awarding the sale to Renong, saying they are now willing to match the Malaysian firm’s bid. Manila Prince then wrote a cheque as bid security, which the GSIS refused to accept.
Issues / Held / Ratio:
1. WON the Constitutional provision on preferring qualified Filipinos in the granting of concessions, privileges, and rights involving the national patrimony and economy is self-executing
Yes. Otherwise, the Consti would always require legislation before any of its provisions could be considered binding. The Consti, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, cannot be held subordinate and cannot be paralyzed by a need for legislative acts.
2. WON “national patrimony” involved only public lands and natural resources
No. “National patrimony” also includes cultural heritage, of which the Manila Hotel has been a symbol.
3. WON 51% of the controlling shares does not involve patrimony
No. Whoever controls the shares, controls the land and the hotel. 4. WON action is addressed against the State, not the GSIS
No. Although the GSIS possesses a distinct and separate personality, its acts are considered “State action” (1) when they involve the performance of a public function, (2) when the government is responsible for the action, and (3) when government authorized action. GSIS activity has requisites (2) and (3), therefore they are actions of the State covered by the Constitution.
Note: Court upheld nationalism and non-material values over foreign investment
** GSIS ordered to cease from selling to Renong Berhad; to accept matching bid of Manila Prince
Peralta v. Mathay Facts:
Petitioner is a trustee of the GSIS. The Auditor General said his Christmas bonus, cost of living allowance and incentive bonus should be deducted from his retirement gratuity in view of the Constitutional provision that no employee of the government may receive additional or double compensation.
Issue: WON petitioner’s Christmas bonus, cost of living allowance and incentive bonus are covered by the
Constitutuional prohibiton Held: Yes.
Ratio: The law is clear. The GSIS act only grants per diems to trustees on a daily basis. Such per diems are then considered as reimbursements or the amount they spend to fulfill their duties. Allowances given to Peralta in this case, however are not considered reimbursements and may not be granted. Between the GSIS act and the Constitution, the latter is supreme. ** Order of Auditor General affirmed.
Tanada v. Cuenco – sorry, lost my digest Republic v. Imperial
Facts:
In 1945, the first set of Comelec commissioners were appointed. These were: 1. Lopez Vito, chairman, who shall serve for nine years until 1954
2. Francisco Enage, member, who shall serve for six years until 1951 3. Vicente Vera, member, who shall serve for three years until 1948
In 1947, Lopez Vito died. He was succeeded by Member Vera as Comelec chairman.
In 1949, Respondent Perez was appointed to fill in Vera’s position, which was vacated by his promotion to Chairmanship upon Vito’s death. Member Enage retired.
In 1951, Vera died. He was succeeded by respondent Imperial as Comelec Chairman.
By this time, only two of the three Comelec seats at that time were occupied. Issue: WON Imperial and Perez are legally continuing office as Chairman and Member of Comelec respectively
Held: Yes
Ratio: The Court counted the respondent’s terms of office from 1941, when CA 567 was implemented, completing the organization of the Comelec. The rules laid down are:
1. All initial appointments should start at the same date and;
2. Vacancies because of death, disability or resignation shall be filled only for the unexpired term of the successor.
The Court ruled that to do otherwise would be to violate the rotational cycle devised by the framers of the Constitution to ensure the continuity of the policies of the Comelec. Also, with vacancies occurring only once every three years, a four-year administration may not appoint more than one member of the Comelec at a time, safeguarding against undue influence by the executive on the independent body.
According to the SC, the following occupied the seats during these times:
1941 1945 1947 1950 Chairman Vito Term ends 1950 Vito Term ends 1950 Vera Term ends 1950 Imperial Term ends 1959 Member Enage Term ends 1947 Enage Term ends 1947 Perez Term ends 1956 Perez Term ends 1956 Member vacant Term ends 1944 Vera Term ends 1953 Rovira Term ends 1953 vacant Term ends 1962
** In 1947, the first vacancy occurred when Chairman Vito died. The second vacancy occurred when Enage retired.
Ordinarily, resignation or death creates a vacancy in the office. But the Court said that Constitutional Commissions like the Comelec are exceptions to the rule, saying that anyone who succeeds as a member has to deal with a shortened tenure.
** Imperial’s term ends in 1959, Perez in 1956. Quo warranto dismissed.
Note:
Republic v. Imperial held that any person, once appointed, may not be reappointed to the Commission regardless of tenure.
Compare this with an earlier case, Nacionalista Party v. De Vera, which held that reappointment is valid so long as the person to be reappointed has not yet served the full term of nine years.
Nacionalista Party v. De Vera Facts:
The petitioners, members of the Nacionalista Party, sought to disqualify Comelec chairman Vicente de Vera from taking part in the Comelec deliberations concerning the Nov. 1949 elections on two grounds:
1. De Vera’s son, Teodoro de Vera, was a Liberal Party senatorial candidate during said elections. Following Rules of Court, the older de Vera should be disqualified.
2. De Vera’s appointment as Chairman is void ab initio, because he had already served as member of Comelec prior to his term as Chairman. Under the Constitution, he was not entitled to any reappointment.
Issues / Held / Ratio:
(1) WON the Rules of Court applies to the Comelec
No. The Rules of Court, promulgated by the Supreme Court, applies only to judicial bodies under its general power of supervision. The Comelec is an independent, administrative body over which the Supreme Court has jurisdiction only to the extent that it may review the Comelec’s decisions, ordinances or rulings on certiorari.
Assuming the Comelec adopted the ROC suppletorily, it does not have the power to adopt rules on the disqualification of its members because the Constitution provides that its members may only be removed through impeachment.
The older De Vera should be able to inhibit himself solely on the basis of ethics. (2) WON a person who has not served for the full term of nine years in the Comelec may be reappointed
Yes. The phrase “may not be reappointed” is a continuation of the phrase “who shall serve office for a term of nine years”. This does not warrant the interpretation that members may not be reappointed when they have not served the full term. In such cases, they may be reappointed provided that (1) the appointment does not preclude the appointment of a new member and (2) a term does not exceed nine years in all.
** Petition dismissed
Note: De Vera inhibited himself from the deliberations.
Brillantes v. Yorac Facts:
Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Yorac’s appointment as Acting Chairman of the Comelec by then President Aquino.
Issue: WON Yorac’s appointment is constitutional
Held: No Ratio:
1. The Comelec, although it exercises primarily executive functions, is an independent constitutional body and is not under the control of the President. The discretion in filling out a vacancy in its chairmanship shall belong to the commission itself.
2. The lack of laws, similar to those rules that guide the Supreme Court in filling out vacancies, shall not diminish the commission’s discretion. Otherwise appointments revocable at will, would violate
the security of tenure and independence of its members.
** Appointment held to be unconstitutional; without prejudice to members of the Comelec re-electing Yorac or somebody else until a new Chairman is appointed by the President.
Besa vs. PNB
Nature: Original Petition in the Supreme Court. Certiorari, prohibition, and quo warranto Facts:
• Tomas Besa was appointed Chief Legal Counsel with the rank of Vice President of PNB.
• By virtue of a resolution by PNB president Roberto Benedicto, he became Consultant on Legal Matters.
• Conrado Medina took over his position. • PNB justified by saying that:
o The position of Chief Legal Counsel carries a special confidential relationship of lawyer and client and thus they have the prerogative to designate or change its lawyer
o The transfer was made by the Board in the exercise of its powers, upon recommendation of the PNB president
Resolution No. 1053: by BOD: shifted Besa to Office of President as Consultant on Legal Matters, without change in salary and other privileges Issue: WON Besa’s transfer was illegal Held: NO
Ratio:
1. The position of Chief Legal Counsel was a highly confidential position and such position’s term depends upon the will of the appointing power.
2. Removal without just cause as a defense applies only to officers and employees enjoying a fixed term.
3. According to Chief Justice, a primarily confidential officer cannot be removed. His term merely expires according to nature of job. Reyes says tenure of confidential officers ends upon loss of confidence.
4. Court also ruled that the position of Chief Legal Counsel is primarily confidential and secondarily technical.
Petition Dismissed.
Dario vs. Mison Mison: Commissioner of Customs
Dario: Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs
Nature:
• March 25, 1986, Aquino promulgated Proclamation No. 3
• “DECLARING A NATIONAL POLICY TO IMPLEMENT THE REFORMS MANDATED BY THE PEOPLE, PROTECTING THEIR BASIC RIGHTS, ADOPTING A PROVISIONAL CONSTITUTION, AND PROVIDING FOR AN ORDERLY TRNASITION TO A GOVERNMENT UNDER NEW CONSTITUTION”
• EO 127, Reorganization Program, was also issued.
• Several acts and rules were issued to comply with the proclamation.
• January 6, 1988, Mison issued a memorandum for employees where the latter shall be:
o Informed of their reappointment, or
o Offered another position in the same department or agency o Informed of their termination • As a result, Dario was one of the many
whose services were terminated subject to normal clearances and possible receipt of retirement benefits under existing laws, rules, and regulations.
• Hereafter, the Civil Service Commission reinstated hundreds of employees who were separated by Mison.
• Mison charged the CSC with grave abuse of discretion, a case that could be subject to judicial review without prejudice to the powers of CSC to have the final say to cases involving its employees and officers. • Dario invoked security of tenure.
Issues:
1. Is it constitutional to separate career civil service employees not for cause but as a result of the reorganization pursuant to Proclamation 3 dated March 25m 1986?
Yes. Under Section 16 of Article 18: Transitory Provisions of the Constitution. It also applies to
separations as results of reorganization after the ratification of the Consti. 2. Was there a valid reorganization in the
Bureau of Customs occurring at that time which would validate Dario’s and several others’ separation from office?
NO.
• NO change in the staffing pattern prescribed by Section 34 of EO 127 was made even after Mison took office.
• Mison separated 394 Customs personnel but replaced them with 522. This was proof that such separations were not made to improve the bureaucracy and make them more efficient.
• It was also a defiance of President’s directive to halt further lay-offs as a consequence of reorganization.
• Mison did not follow procedures laid down by EO 127 regarding lay-offs.
3. Could Mison remove Cesar Dario from office?
No. Dario was a presidential appointee and thus Mison had no
authority to terminate Dario. Reinstated to positions.
Civil Service Commission vs. Salas Nature: Petition for review on certiorari of a
decision of the COA. Facts:
• PAGCOR Chairman appointed Salas as Internal Security Staff member and
• Assigned him to the casino at the Manila Pavilion Hotel.
• December 3, 1991: the BOD of PAGCOR terminated his employment allegedly for loss of confidence.
• The Intelligence Division of PAGCOR reported that Salas was engaged in proxy betting.
• Salas claimed that he was not a confidential employee of PAGCOR and thus should not be dismissed on the ground of loss of confidence.
Issue: WON Salas was a confidential employee Held: NO
Ratio:
1. PD No 1869, which created PAGCOR, also included in section 16 that all employees of the casinos and related services shall be classified as confidential appointees. However, under the Consti and the Admin Code, classification of confidential employees depends on the nature of their work.(Section 2(2) of Article 9-B). Court will have the final say as to whether position is confidential or not.
• Court found that Salas did not enjoy ‘close intimacy’ with PAGCOR, which would otherwise place him under the category of a confidential employee.
• He does not enjoy primarily close intimacy that characterizes a confidential
employee. He does not even directly report to the Office of the Chairman but to the Area Supervisor who in turn implements the directives of the Branch Chief Security Officer.
• His compensation level belongs to Pay Class 2 relative to the highest, Pay Class 12.
COA decision affirmed. Salas not reinstated.
Labo ‘tong digest na ‘to. Don’t depend on this.
SSS vs. CA
Nature: Petition for review of the decision of the COA
Facts:
• June 9, 1987: officers and members allegedly staged an illegal strike
• and barricaded the entrances to the SSS Building
• preventing non-striking employees from reporting for work and
• SSS members from transacting business with the SSS.
REASON FOR STRIKE: SSS failed to act on union’s demands which included among many other things, the implementation of the provisions of the
old SSS-SSSEA CBD on check-off of union dues. • The Public Sector Labor Management,
upon report of the strike, ordered strikers to return to work.
• Strikers refused.
Issue: WON the employees of SSS have the right to strike.
Held: NO Ratio:
• EO No. 180 implemented the Consti guarantee of the right of govt employees to organize.
• However, section 14 thereof also provided that the Civil Service Law and rules governing concerted activities and strikes in the govt service shall be observed, subject to any legislation that may be enacted by Congress.
• Such mentioned legislation was Memorandum Circular 6 by CSC which provided that ‘prior to the enactment by Congress of applicable laws concerning strike by government employees…enjoins under pain of administrative sanctions, all
govt officers and employees from staging strikes, demonstrations, mass leaves, walk-outs and other forms of mass action which will result in temporary stoppage or disruption of public service.
Issue: WON RTC has jurisdiction over the case and to issue a writ of injunction enjoining the
continuance of the strike. Held: YES.
Ratio: It is the Public Sector Labor Management that has jurisdiction over unresolved labor disputes involving government employees. (thru EO No. 180) However, it has not been granted by
law the authority to issue writs of injunction in labor disputes within its jurisidiction.
Blaquera vs. Alcala
Nature: Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and Prohibition
Facts:
• Petitioners were paid incentive benefits for the year 1992, pursuant to EO 292, otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987 and the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of EO 292.
• ADEPT members were granted incentive bonus for 1992 pursuant to RA 6971 or the Productivity Incentives Act of 1990.
• Corporate Auditor disallowed the act as it was a violation of Admin Order 29.
• ADEPT questioned this action.
Issue: WON ADEPT members were covered by RA 6971 or the Productivity Incentives Act. • NO. PTA, employer of ADEPT members, is
a government-owned and controlled corporation with original charter subject to Civil Service Law, Rules, and Regulations. • It is already within the scope of the
incentives award system under Section 1, Rule 10 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing EO 292 issued by the Civil Service Commission.
Issue: WON AO 29 and AO 268 are violative of EO 292 and hence null and void.
No. Part of control power of President. Exercising his power of control by modifying the
acts of the respondents who granted incentive benefits to their employees without appropriate clearance from Office of the President. President,
not the Commission has the power to fix incentives.
AO 29: Ramos, authorized the grant of productivity incentive benefits for the year 1992 in
the maximum amount of 1000
* return/refund of the excess within a period of 6 months to commence 15 days after issuance of
order
AO 268: enjoins the grant of productivity incentive benefits without prior approval of the president
* Productivity incentive benefits in a maximum amount equivalent to 30 percent of his 1 month
basic salary but not less than 2000.
• Constitutionality and Validity of Administrative Order No. 29 and 268 Other petitioners granted incentives. No need
for refund coz there was no bad faith. ADEPT not given incentives, as they are not covered
by RA 5971
COMELEC Loong vs. COMELEC 305 SCRA 832
NATURE: Special Civil Action in the SC. Certiorari Facts:
• Pursuant to RA No. 8436 prescribing the adoption of an automated election system, the May 11, 1998 regular elections in the ARMM was decided upon with the aid of counting machines.
• May 12, 1998: Atty. Tolentino, Jr. was informed by some election inspectors and watchers of discrepancies between votes cast and the election returns for the mayoralty candidates in the Municipality of Pata.
• Upon submission of problem to the technical experts of COMELEC, it was discovered that the ballots were not properly printed and such was the cause of the wrong readings. Nothing was wrong with the machines.
• Tolentino reported to COMELEC Main and the latter issued Minute Resolution No. 98-1747 ordering a manual count but only in the municipality of Pata and the subsequent MR No. 98-1796 laying down rules for manual count
• Private resondent Tan was proclaimed governor-elect of Sulu on the basis of the manual count.
• Petitioners questioned validity of resolutions.
Issues Held/Ratio 1. WON a petition for
certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of ROC is the right remedy to invalidate the disputed COMELEC resolutions
YES. Section 7, Article 9(A) of Consti
“unless provided by this Consti or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of
each Commission may be brought to the SC on certiorari by the aggrieved
party within 30 days from receipt of copy thereof” The petition for certiorari was the proper remedy for questions regarding FINAL orders, rulings, and decision of the COMELEC rendered in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. 2. WON COMELEC
committed GAD
amounting to lack of jurisdiction in ordering the manual count.
NO. The order for a manual count was not arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical. Factual Bases:
a) automated
machines failed to read correctly the ballots in Pata (mayoralty candidate Anton Burahan got 0 votes even if Chairman of the Board of Election Inspectors and others said they voted for him) b) another got 100%
of the votes
c) technical experts confirmed that the
problem was caused by the improperly printed ballots d) in other municipalities, ballots contained the wrong sequence code e) failures of automated counting created post election tension
f) even the military
and police authorities unanimously recommended manual counting g) petitioner Loong
was not denied due process. They were given chance to oppose manual counting, submit written reports, escort and observe manual counting. h) Automated
counting could not push through. RA 8436 only provided that in case of breakdowns in one machine, other machines from other municipalities may be used. However, in the case at bar, there was nothing wrong with the machines but with the ballots.
i)
Under Section 2(1) of Article 9 C: COMELEC is given the power to enforce andadminister all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall. 3. Assuming manual count is illegal, WON it is proper to call for a special election for the position of governor of Sulu
NO.
Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that a special election can only be held if there is a failure of election such that no election occurs because of force majeure, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous cases.
Plea for special election should be submitted to COMELEC not to the SC. COMELEC decides en banc by a majority vote of its members. (section 4 of RA No. 7166)
Only a special election only for the position of governor would be discriminatory and will violate equal protection of laws of other candidates for other positions.
Sanchez vs. COMELEC 114 SCRA 454
Nature: Petitions for certiorari to review the resolution of the COMELEC
Facts:
• January 30, 1980 local elections
• Virgilio Sanchez: Nacionalista Party candidate for Municipal Mayor of San Fernando, Pampanga
• Armando Biliwang: Kilusang Bagong Lipunan candidate
• Biliwang was proclaimed winner by Municipal Board of Canvassers
• February 1, 1980: Sanchez filed petition to declare null and void the elctions due to alleged large-scale terrorism
• COMELEC denied petition. Sanchez moved for recon. COMELEC reversed decision. • COMELEC issued resolution which said
read:
o Annulment and setting aside the proclamation of winners of the January 30, 1980 elections
o To certify to the President/ Prime Minister and the Batasan Pambansa the failure of election in San Fernando so that remedial legislation may be enacted and that pending such enactment, the President/PM may appoint the municipal officials of San Fernando.
Issues
Held/Ratio WON COMELEC has
power to annul an entire municipal election on the
YES: Section 175 of 1978 Election Code
“It may, motu proprio or upon written petition,
ground of
post-election terrorism and after due notice and hearing order the suspension of the proclamation of a candidate-elect or annul any proclamation…”
• part of its main objective to insure free, orderly, and honest elections. • Since the submission of returns were vitiated by post-election terrorism, popular will was prejudiced.
WON COMELEC has authority to call for a special election
YE. Section 5 of Batasan Pambansa Bilang 52. “in case of violence, terrorism, loss or destruction of election paraphernalia or records, force majeure and other analogous cases…the COMELEC shall, on the basis of a verified petition and after due notice and hearing, call for the holding or continuation of the elections as soon as practicable”
•
Section 8 of Election Code of 1978 similarly provides. • Special elctions shall be called by the Commission for the purpose of filling a vacancy or a newly created elective position, as the case may be. De Jesus vs. People 120 SCRA 760Nature: Petition for review on certiorari of the resolution of the Sandiganbayan
Facts:
• Defeated mayoral candidate of the Nacionalista party, Ananias Hibo, filed a complaint with the COMELEC charging • Rogelio de Jesus, then COMELEC registrar
of Casiguran,
• Copy of complaint—Ministry of Justice---Provincial Fiscal of Sorsogon for investigation
• Asst. Fiscals Manuel Genova and Delfin Tarog of the Tanodbayan conducted the investigation and issued a resolution • Finding the existence of prima facie case
against petitioner for violation of section 89 and subsections of Section 178 of Election Code of 1978.
• After approval by Tanodbayan, info was filed before the Sandiganbayan.
• Petitioner question jurisdiction of Tanodbayan and Sandiganbayan over the case.
What were the violations?
1. registered persons in order that they may vote on election day
2. tampered reports on number of voters: 10, 727 instead of 10, 532
Issue: Who has the power to investigate, prosecute, and try election offenses committed by a public officer in relation to his office- COMELEC and CFI or the Tanodbayan and Sandiganbayan? Held: COMELEC
Section 2 of Article 12© of 1973 Consti: COMELEC has power to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections
Section 182 of 1978 Election Code:
The Commission shall, thru its duly authorized legal officer, have the power to conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable under this Code and to prosecute the same. The Commission may avail of the assistance of other prosecuting arms of the government.
Had the employee not been an officer of the COMELEC, regular courts would have jurisdiction.
Section 4 of PD No. 1606 gives Sandiganbayan jurisdiction over crimes or offenses committed by public officers…In relation to their office.
However, Section 184 of the Election Cod also gave to the CFI the authority to hear and decide all election offenses without qualification as to the status of the accused.
Javier vs. COMELEC 144 SCRA 194
Nature: Petition to review the decision of the COMELEC
Issues here were rendered moot and academic. Facts:
Candidates in Antique for the Batasan Pambansa in May 1984 elections
• Evelio B. Javier: more popular support • Arturo Pacificador: nominee of KBL
May 13, 1984: eve of elections: Pacificador and his men allegedly ambushed and killed several followers of Javier
• Javier then questioned the canvass of elections but complaints were dismissed. Pacificador was proclaimed winner.
• Pending petition, second division of COMELEC, on June 7, 1984, ordered the board to immediately convene and to proclaim the winner without prejudice to the outcome of the case before the Commission.
Issue: WON 2nd Division of COMELEC had jurisdiction and authority to proclaim Pacificador the winner in election.
Held: NO
Ratio: Section 3 of Article 12-C:
“All election cases may be heard and decided y division except contest involving members of the Batasang Pambansa, which shall
be heard and decided en banc.”
Purpose: to ensure the most careful consideration of such cases
*PD No. 1296: pre-proclamation controversy Guevara vs. COMELEC 104 Phil 269
Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court. Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction
Facts:
• Jose Guevara published in the Sunday Times an article entitled “Ballot Boxes Contract Hit.
• COMELEC ordered him to show just cause why he should not be punished for contempt.
• COMELEC claimed that such article would undermine the exclusive constitutional function of Commission and its Chairman Domingo Imperial and member Sixto Brilliantes in the admin of all laws relative to the conduct of elections.
National Shipyards and Steel Corp, Acme Steel, Asiatic Steel to manufacture and supply COMELEC ballot
boxes
Issue: WON COMELEC had jurisdiction and authority to investigate and punish petitioner for contempt in connection with the alleged publication
Held: NO Ratio:
• The controversy arose from the ministerial act of the Commission in requisitioning for the necessary ballot boxes in connection with the elctions.
• It was a ministerial duty; it did not exercise any judicial function.
• Such being the case, it could not exercise power to punish contempt as postulated in the law, for such power is inherently judicial in nature.
Libanan vs. HRET 283 SCRA 520 Nature: Special Civil Action in the SC. Certiorari Facts:
• May 28, 1997: HRET affirmed proclamation of Jose Tan Ramirez as duly elected rep of Eastern Samar over Marcelino Libanan
• Libanan filed an election protest before HRET claiming, among other things, that the May 8, 115 elections were marred by massive electoral irregularities perpetrated by Ramirez and his followers. • Libanan prayed for HRET to issue an order
to annul election and proclamation of Ramirez and thereafter so proclaim him as duly elected Rep of Samar.
• HRET said ballots had the required COMELEC watermarks and were thus valid.
• Petitioners said the absence of the signature of the chairman of BEI deemed ballots void.
Issue: WON HRET committed GAD in ruling that the absence of the signature of the Chairman of the BEI in the ballots did not render the ballots spurious
Held: NO
Failure of the BEI to sign the ballot shall constitute an election offense. However, ballot shall not be considered invalid. It merely renders BEI Chairman accountable for such failure. (Section 24 of RA 7166)
Authenticating marks may be any of the following: a) COMELEC watermark
b) Signature or initials or thumbprint of Chairman of BEI
c) Presence of red and blue fibers
IX. Courts and the Constitution
Marcos vs. Manglapus
Nature: Petition for mandamus and prohibition Facts:
During the term of Cory Aquino, the Marcoses wanted to return to the Philippines but were barred from doing so.
This is a petition for the court to order the respondents to issue travel documents to the Marcoses and to enjoin the implementation of the President’s decision to bar their return to the Philippines.
Issue: WON Cory had constitutional authority to prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines. YES
Sub-issues:
Do the Marcoses have right to return to the Philippines? JUSTICIABLE QUESTION. COURT HAS AUTHORITY.
Is that a threat to national security? POLITICAL. PRESIDENT HAS POWER TO DECIDE.
Issue Held/ Ratio
WON president has power to bar Marcoses’ return
YES.
Article 2, Sec 4 and 5:
The President has obligation to protect the people, promote their welfare and advance the national interest.
House Resolution 1342 even recognized power of President to
bar the return.
Resolution content: let them return (no implication of not allowing president to bar return.
WON president acted arbitrarily in determining the their return poses a threat to national interest and welfare
NO.
Declaration of threat had factual bases:
• Marcoses were driven out of the country for stealing millions from country’s treasury. • Their return would have
posed violence against State.
James Madison vs. James Madison, Secretary of State
Nature: Facts:
• The late president of the USA, Mr. Adamas nominated the
petitioners to the Senate and got their consent and advice.
• They were to serve as justices of peace of the Columbia.
• Together with their appointment,
commissions were to be granted for them. • Such commissions were
signed by the President and affixed, by Madison, as Secretary of State, with the seal of the United States. • However, when
petitioners asked for their commissions from the Secretary of State, the same were refused of them.
• Petitioners wanted court to order Madison to deliver the commissions.
Issue Held/Ratio
1. Whether the Supreme Court can award the writ of mandamus in any case
NO.
The legal remedy for appeals differs. • The writ of manda mus in cases warrant ed by the principl es and usages of law, can be issued to any court appoint ed, or persons holding office, under the he authorit y of the United States. • Writ of manda mus: to require any person, corpora tion, or inferior court • To fo some particul ar duty therein specifie d, • Which apperta ins to their office and duty • And which the court has previou sly determi ned to be conson ant to right and justice • In all cases where a party has a right to have anythin g done
