De Castro-Political Law (1)

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Political 2015) Law POLICE POWER Ayala Land Inc sold parcel of land to Spouses Jose Critina Yuson with a restriction that the property shall be used exclusively for the establishment and maintenance of a preparatory school, However, the spouses evaded such restriction and thus it is violates zoning ordinance. The court ruled that zoning ordinance in question, while valid as a police measure, was not intended to affect existing rights protected by the impairment clause. It is always a wise policy to reconcile apparently conflicting rights under the Constitution and to preserve both instead of nullifying one against the other. - The Learning Child, Inc. and Sps. Felipe And Mary Anne Alfonso vs. Ayala Alabang Village Association, et al., G.R. No. 134269 July 7, 2010 LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT HRET The 2004 HRET Rules on summons is silent on how the summons should be served on the protestee. Significantly, Rule 80 of the 2004 HRET Rules provides that the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure applies by analogy or suppletorily in so far as the latter may be applicable and not inconsistent therewith as well as with the orders, resolutions and decisions of the HRET. In view of the failure of the HRET Rules to specify the authorized modes of service of summons, resort then is necessary to Sections 6 and 7, Rule 14, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. In the case at bar, the service of the summons was made through registered mail, which is not among the allowed modes of service under Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. - Datu Pax Pakung S. Mangudadatu vs. The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Angelo O. Montilla, G.R. No. 179813, December 18, 2008 EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT POWER OF REORGANIZATION The President, by virtue of Section 31, Chapter 10, Title III, Book III of the Administrative Code of 1987, has the continuing authority to reorganize the Office of the President, "in order to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency." As such, the issuance of Executive Order No. 378 by President Arroyo was well within her prerogative. Its constitutionality can be derived from the exercise of a delegated legislative power granted by law. Moreover, it purports to institute necessary reforms in government in order to improve and upgrade efficiency in the delivery of public services by redefining the functions of the NPO and limiting its funding to its own income and to transform it into a self-reliant agency able to compete with the private sector. - Atty. Sylvia Banda, Consoricia O. Penson, Radito V. Padrigano, et al., vs. Eduardo R. Ermita, in his capacity as Executive Secretary, The Director General of the Philippine Information Agency and The National Treasurer, G.R. No. 166620, April 20, 2010

Page 1 of 11

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Political 2015) Law PARDONING POWER When the pardon extended to former President Estrada shows that both the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua and its accessory penalties are included in the pardon. The first sentence refers to the executive clemency extended to former President Estrada who was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of plunder and imposed a penalty of reclusion perpetua. The latter is the principal penalty pardoned which relieved him of imprisonment. The sentence that followed, which states that "(h)e is hereby restored to his civil and political rights," expressly remitted the accessory penalties that attached to the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua. Hence, from the text of the pardon that the accessory penalties of civil interdiction and perpetual absolute disqualification were expressly remitted together with the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Furthermore, the third preambular clause of the pardon, i.e., “[w]hereas, Joseph Ejercito Estrada has publicly committed to no longer seek any elective position or office,” neither makes the pardon conditional, nor militate against the conclusion that former President Estrada’s rights to suffrage and to seek public elective office have been restored. A preamble is really not an integral part of a law. It is merely an introduction to show its intent or purposes. It cannot be the origin of rights and obligations. Where the meaning of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the preamble can neither expand nor restrict its operation much less prevail over its text. Hence if the pardon was intended be conditional, it should have explicitly stated the same in the text of the pardon itself. Since it did not make an integral part of the decree of pardon, the 3rd preambular clause cannot be interpreted as a condition to the pardon extended. - Atty. Alicia Risos-Vidal and Alfredo S. Lim vs. Commission on Elections and Joseph Ejercito Estrada, G.R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE Majority of the above jurisprudence have found their way in our jurisdiction. In Chavez v. PCGG, this Court held that there is a governmental privilege against public disclosure with respect to state secrets regarding military, diplomatic and other security matters. In Chavez v. PEA, there is also a recognition of the confidentiality of Presidential conversations, correspondences, and discussions in closed-door Cabinet meetings. In Senate v. Ermita, the concept of presidential communications privilege is fully discussed. As may be gleaned from the above discussion, the claim of executive privilege is highly recognized in cases where the Page 2 of 11

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Political 2015) Law subject of inquiry relates to a power textually committed by the Constitution to the President, such as the area of military and foreign relations. Under our Constitution, the President is the repository of the commander-in-chief, appointing, pardoning, and diplomatic, powers. Consistent with the doctrine of separation of powers, the information relating to these powers may enjoy greater confidentiality than others. The above cases, especially, Nixon, In Re Sealed Case and Judicial Watch, somehow provide the elements of presidential communications privilege, to wit: 1) The protected communication must relate to a quintessential and nondelegable presidential power; 2) The communication must be authored or “solicited and received” by a close advisor of the President or the President himself. The judicial test is that an advisor must be in operational proximity” with the President. 3) The presidential communications privilege remains a qualified privilege that may be overcome by a showing of adequate need, such that the information sought likely contains important evidence and by the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority. In the case at bar, Executive Secretary Ermita premised his claim of executive privilege on the ground that the communications elicited by the three (3) questions fall under conversation and correspondence between the President and public officials necessary in her executive and policy decision-making process and, that “the information sought to be disclosed might impair our diplomatic as well as economic relations with the People’s Republic of China. Simply put, the bases are presidential communications privilege and executive privilege on matters relating to diplomacy or foreign relations. Using the above elements, we are convinced that, indeed, the communications elicited by the three (3) questions are covered by the presidential communications privilege. First, the communications relate to a quintessential and non-delegable power of the President, i.e. the power to enter into an executive agreement with other countries. This authority of the President to enter into executive agreements without the concurrence of the Legislature has traditionally been recognized in Philippine jurisprudence. Second, the communications are received by a close advisor of the President. Under the operational proximity test, petitioner can be considered a close advisor, being a member of President Arroyo’s cabinet. And third, there is no adequate showing of a compelling need that would justify the limitation of the privilege and of the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority. - Romulo Neri vs. Senate Committee on Accountability Of Public Officers and Investigations, Senate Committee on Trade and Commerce, and Senate Committee on National Defense and Security, G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008 If what is involved is the presumptive privilege of presidential communications when invoked by the President on a matter clearly within the domain of the Executive, the said presump-tion dictates that the same be recognized and be given preference or priority, in the absence of proof of a compelling or critical need for disclosure by the Page 3 of 11

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Political 2015) Law one assailing such presumption. - Romulo L. Neri vs. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, Senate Committee on Trade and Commerce, and Senate Committee on National Defense and Security, G.R. No. 180643, September 04, 2008 JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Section 6 of RA No. 8246, cited by the CA Justices as a legal basis for the aforesaid waiver, does not allow any provision of the said law to be used to justify the transfer of any member of the CA to any place or station without his or her consent. However, the movement from one station to another concerned here is occasioned by the operation of the IRCA, and not by the construction of the provision of RA No. 8246. To our mind, the said provision of law guarantees that a Member of the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred without his consent from a station where he ought to be. The said station is determined not by RA No. 8246 but by the rule on the reorganization of Divisions contained in the IRCA. The said rule is anchored on the solitary standard supplied by R.A. No. 8246, which is seniority. - RE: Request of Thelma J. Chiong For Investigation of the Alleged “Justice For Sale” In CACebu, A.M. No. 07405CA, February 22, 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISION COMMISSION ON AUDIT In Rodolfo S. de Jesus vs. COA, the Court upheld the authority and jurisdiction of the COA to rule on the legality of the disbursement of government funds by a water district and declared that such power does not conflict with the jurisdiction of the courts, the DBM, and the LWUA. Citing Section 2, Subdivision D, Article IX of the Constitution, the Court declared that it is the mandate of the COA to audit all government agencies, including GOCCs with original charters. Indeed, the Constitution specifically vests in the COA the authority to determine whether government entities comply with laws and regulations in disbursing government funds, and to disallow illegal or irregular disbursements of government funds. This independent constitutional body is tasked to be vigilant and conscientious in safeguarding the proper use of the governments, and ultimately the peoples, property. - Rebecca A. Barbo, Eleonora R. De Jesus, and Antonio B. Magtibay vs. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 157542, October 10, 2008 As the sole constitutional body mandated to examine, audit and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations, the Commission on Audit is in the best position to determine which allowances and benefits may be properly allowed under the circumstances. Using the "public purpose" test, there must be a showing that the additional allowances and benefits are necessary or relevant to the fulfillment of the official duties and functions of the government officers and Page 4 of 11

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Political 2015) Law employees. Otherwise, absent the direct and substantial relationship between the performance of the public functions and the grant of the disputed allowances, the disallowance of those benefits cannot be invalidated. - Ramon R. Yap vs. Commision on Audit, G.R. No. 158562, April 23, 2010 COA had exclusive jurisdiction to decide on the allowance or disallowance of money claims arising from the implementation of Republic Act No. 6758 (Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989). - Manolito Agra et al., vs. Commission On Audit, G. R. No. 167807, December 6, 2011 COMMISSION ON ELECTION By virtue of the 1987 Constitution, the COMELEC has the power to investigate and prosecute cases of violations of election laws. Assuming it was acting as the National Board of Canvassers at the time it held Bedol in contempt, the board was still exercising quasi-judicial functions. - Lintang Bedol vs. Commission On Elections, G.R. No. 179830, December 03 2009 CIVIL SERVICE COMMISION Both the appointing authority and the appointee are equally real parties in interest who have the requisite legal standing to bring an action challenging a CSC disapproval of an appointment. The CSCs disapproval of an appointment is a challenge to the exercise of the appointing authority’s discretion. The appointing authority must have the right to contest the disapproval. The appointee is rightly a real party in interest too. He is also injured by the CSC disapproval, because he is prevented from assuming the office in a permanent capacity. - Liza M. Quirog and Rene L. Relampagos vs. Governor Erico B. Aumentado / Civil Service Commission vs. Court of Appeals and Gov. Erico B. Aumentado, G.R. No. 163443 & G.R. No. 163568, November 11, 2008 A person taking the civil service examinations for another constitutes dishonesty and grave misconduct. Also, in case where there are discrepancies in the application form or personal data sheet such as birth date, bare allegations of want of knowledge will not hold water unless there is presentation of competent proof. Civil Service Commission vs. Fatima A. Macud, G.R. No. 177531, September 10, 2009 BILL OF RIGHTS DUE PROCESS Due process in an administrative context does not require trial type proceedings similar to those in courts of justice; where opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process. - Atty. Emmanuel Pontejos vs. Hon. Aniano A. Desierto and Restituto Aquino, G.R. No. 148600, July 7, 2009 Page 5 of 11

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Political 2015) Law

During appeals in criminal cases, the Office of the Solicitor General has the power to represent the State and the failure of the Court of Appeals to notify the State through the OSG of the pending proceeding shall constitute deprivation of due process and shall render all subsequent proceedings null and void. - People of the Philippines vs. Arturo F. Duca, G.R. No. 171175, October 30, 2009 EQUAL PROTECTION In view of the various stages of deliberation in the selection process and as a consequence of his/her duty to faithfully enforce the relevant laws, the discretion of the President in the matter of the Order of National Artists is confined to the names submitted to him/her by the National Commission for Culture and Arts (NCCA) and the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) Boards. There was a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution when the former President gave preferential treatment to respondents Guidote-Alvarez, Caparas, Mañosa and Moreno; The conferment of the Order of National Artists on said respondents was therefore made with grave abuse of discretion and should be set aside. - National Artist For Literature Virgilio Almario et al. vs. The Executive Secretary et al., G.R. No. 189028, July 16, 2013 SEARCHES AND SEIZURES Without valid justification for the in flagrante delicto arrests of accused-appellants, the search of accused-appellants’ persons incidental to said arrests, and the eventual seizure of the shabu from accused-appellants’ possession, are also considered unlawful and, thus, the seized shabu is excluded in evidence as fruit of a poisonous tree. Without the corpus delicti for the crime charged, then the acquittal of accused-appellants is inevitable. - People of the Philippines vs. Rolando S. Delos Reyes, alias "Botong," and Raymundo G. Reyes, alias "Mac-Mac," G.R. No. 174774, August 31, 2011 EXPROPRIATION In the context of the States inherent power of eminent domain, there is taking where the owner is actually deprived or dispossessed of his property; where there is a practical destruction or a material impairment of the value of his property; or when he is deprived of the ordinary use thereof. There is a taking when the expropriator enters private property not only for a momentary period but for a more permanent duration, for the purpose of devoting the property to a public use in such a manner as to oust the owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment thereof. It cannot be said that the right of eminent domain may be exercised by simply leasing the premises to be expropriated. In a lease contract, the owner was compensated and not deprived of the ordinary and beneficial use of his property by its being diverted to public use, there is no taking within the constitutional sense. -

Page 6 of 11

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Political 2015) Law Philippine National Oil Company vs. Leonilo A. Maglasang and Oscar S. Maglasang, G.R. No. 155407, November 11, 2008 RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED An accused’s right to “have a speedy, impartial, and public trial” is guaranteed in criminal cases by Section 14(2), Article III of the Constitution. This right to a speedy trial may be defined as one free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays, its “salutary objective” being to assure that an innocent person may be free from the anxiety and expense of a court litigation or, if otherwise, of having his guilt determined within the shortest possible time compatible with the presentation and consideration of whatsoever legitimate defense he may interpose. Intimating historical perspective on the evolution of the right to speedy trial, we reiterate the old legal maxim, “justice delayed is justice denied.” A verbal judgment or order of dismissal is a violation of Section 1, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure; hence, such order is, in contemplation of law, not in esse, therefore, ineffective. - Monico V. Jacob and Celso L. Legarda vs. Hon. Sandiganbayan Fourth Division and The Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 162206, November 17, 2010 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

Dishonesty is incurred when an individual intentionally makes a false statement of any material fact, practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in order to secure his examination, registration, appointment, or promotion. It is understood to imply the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; the disposition to defraud, deceive or betray. Negligence as the omission of the diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time, and of the place. In the case of public officials, there is negligence when there is a breach of duty or failure to perform the obligation, and there is gross negligence when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable. Given the fact that respondent was able to successfully overcome the onus of demonstrating that he does not possess any unexplained wealth and that the omissions in his SALNs did not betray any sense of bad faith or the intent to mislead or deceive on his part considering that his SALNs actually disclose the extent of his and his wife’s assets and business interest. - Office of the Ombudsman vs. Arnel A. Bernardo, Attorney V, Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) G.R. No. 181598, March 6, 2013 Page 7 of 11

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Political 2015) Law

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW The PNP Chief had no jurisdiction to entertain appeal in the guise of a motion for reinvestigation filed by petitioners against the decision of Inspection and Legal Affairs Division of the CPDC. The motion for re-investigation filed by Judge Angeles with the PNP Chief is in substance an appeal from the decision of the CPDC District Director. Since the PNP Chief had no jurisdiction, all actions taken by the PNP Chief pursuant to the appeal is void. - Judge Adoracion G. Angeles vs. P/Insp. John A. Mamauag, Spo2 Eugene Almario, SPO4 Erlinda Garcia and SPO1 Vivian Felipe, G.R. No. 153624, October 24, 2008 Courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if: first, there is a grave violation of the Constitution; second, the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved; third, when the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar and the public; and fourth, the case is capable of repetition yet evading review, the above exceptions do not find application in the instant case. - Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, et al. vs. Jesus D. Francisco, Sr., G.R. No. 172553, December 14, 2011 ELECTION LAW DISQUALIFICATION After a candidate has been proclaimed by the COMELEC, no case for disqualification. Should COMELEC find probable cause that the proclaimed winner has violated the Omnibus Election Code and an action for disqualification is instituted as a result, the Commission should file an information against the winner with regular courts but shall still dismiss the disqualification case. - Roberto Albaa, Katherine Belo, Generoso Derramas, Vicente Duran, Ricardo Araque, Merlinda Degala, Gabriel Aranas, Ernesto Bitoon and Juvic Deslate, vs. Pio Jude S. Belo, Rodolfo Deocampo and Lorencito Diaz, G.R. No. 158734, October 2, 2009 POLITICAL PARTIES The twin requirements of due notice and hearing are indispensable before the COMELEC may properly order the cancellation of the registration and accreditation of a party-list organization. Indubitably, if the term-sharing agreement was not actually implemented by the parties thereto, it appears that SENIOR CITIZENS, as a party-list organization, had been unfairly and arbitrarily penalized by the COMELEC En Banc. Verily, how can there be disobedience on the part of SENIOR CITIZENS when its nominees, in fact, desisted from carrying out their agreement? Hence, there was no violation of an election law, rule, or regulation to speak of. Clearly then, the disqualification of Page 8 of 11

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Political 2015) Law SENIOR CITIZENS and the cancellation of its registration and accreditation have no legal leg to stand on. - Coalition Of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines, Inc. [Senior Citizens Partylist], represented herein by its Chairperson and First Nominee, Francisco G. Datol, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 206844-45, July 23, 2013 ELECTIONS PROHIBITED ACTS When a security guard carries the firearm within the vicinity of the workplace that he is assigned, the subsequent use of the said firearm shall not constitute a violation of the Gun Ban Rule. - Juanito R. Rimando vs. Commission On Elections and Norma O. Magno, G.R. No. 176364, September 18, 2009 After a candidate has been proclaimed by the COMELEC, no case for disqualification. Should COMELEC find probable cause that the proclaimed winner has violated the Omnibus Election Code and an action for disqualification is instituted as a result, the Commission should file an information against the winner with regular courts but shall still dismiss the disqualification case. - Roberto Albaa, Katherine Belo, Generoso Derramas, Vicente Duran, Ricardo Araque, Merlinda Degala, Gabriel Aranas, Ernesto Bitoon and Juvic Deslate vs. Pio Jude S. Belo, Rodolfo Deocampo and Lorencito Diaz, G.R. No. 158734, October 2, 2009 JURISDICTION IN ELECTION LAW Since it is the COMELEC which has jurisdiction to take cognizance of an appeal from the decision of the regional trial court in election contests involving elective municipal officials, then it is also the COMELEC which has jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. Clearly, petitioner erred in invoking this Court's power to issue said extraordinary writ. - Ceriaco Bulilis vs. Victorino Nuez, Hon. Presiding Judge, 6th MCTC, Ubay, Bohol, Hon. Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 52, Talibon, Bohol, G.R. No.195953, August 9, 2011 The Court held that his case must be distinguished from other cases where the disqualified candidate was shown to be merely leasing a residence in the place where he sought to run for office. - Representative Danilo Ramon S. Fernandez vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Jesus L. Vicente, G. R. No. 187478, December 21, 2009 ELECTION PROTEST COMELEC cannot outright dismiss an appeal due to non-payment of appeal fees when the Commission itself has promulgated an order clarifying the rules and promoted liberal construction thereof. - Constancio D. Pacanan, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections and Francisco M. Langi, Sr., G.R. No. 186224, August 25, 2009

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Page 9 of 11

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Political 2015) Law

PUBLIC CORPORATIONS Not all corporations, which are not government owned or controlled, are ipso facto to be considered private corporations as there exists another distinct class of corporations or chartered institutions which are otherwise known as "public corporations." These corporations are treated by law as agencies or instrumentalities of the government which are not subject to the tests of ownership or control and economic viability but to different criteria relating to their public purposes/interests or constitutional policies and objectives and their administrative relationship to the government or any of its Departments or Offices. - Boy Scouts of the Philippines vs. Commission On Audit, G.R. No. 177131, June 7, 2011 POWERS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS Under the Local Government Code, two requisites must be met before a national project that affects the environmental and ecological balance of local communities can be implemented: prior consultation with the affected local communities, and prior approval of the project by the appropriate sanggunian. Absent either of these mandatory requirements, the project’s implementation is illegal. Accordingly, the information dissemination conducted by respondent province months after the Environmental Compliance Certificates had already been issued was insufficient to comply with this requirement under the Local Government Code. Had they been conducted properly, the prior public consultation should have considered the ecological or environmental concerns of the stakeholders and studied measures alternative to the project, to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impact or damage. In fact, respondent Province once tried to obtain the favorable endorsement of the Sangguniang Bayan of Malay, but this was denied by the latter. - Boracay Foundation, Inc., vs. The Province of Aklan, represented by Governor Carlito S. Marquez, the Philippine Reclamation Authority, and the DENR-EMB (Region VI) G.R. No. 196870, June 26, 2012

SOCIAL JUSTICE For sure, the NHA’s Order of relocating [Petitioner Magkalas] to her assigned lot and demolishing her property on account of her refusal to vacate was consistent with the law’s funda-mental objective of promoting social justice in the manner that will inure to the common good. [Magkalas] cannot disregard the lawful action of the NHA which was merely implementing P.D. No. 1315. It is also worth noting that [Magkalas’] continued refusal to leave the subject property has hindered the development of the entire area. Indeed, [Magkalas] cannot invoke the social justice clause at the expense of the common welfare. - Caridad Magkalas vs. National Housing Authority, G.R. No. 138823, September 17, 2008 Page 10 of 11

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Political 2015) Law ACADEMIC FREEDOM While most agree that the right to criticize the judiciary is critical to maintaining a free and democratic society, there is also a general consensus that healthy criticism only goes so far. Many types of criticism leveled at the judiciary cross the line to become harmful and irresponsible attacks. These potentially devastating attacks and unjust criticism can threaten the independence of the judiciary. The court must "insist on being permitted to proceed to the disposition of its business in an orderly manner, free from outside interference obstructive of its functions and tending to embarrass the administration of justice.” - Re: Letter of The Up Law Faculty entitled "Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court, A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC, March 8, 2011

Page 11 of 11