Case Digests 7

8/13/2019 Case Digests 7

1/32

TITLE : SOLIVEN VS. MAKASIAR

CITATION: 167 SCRA 393DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 1988

FACTS:

Subsequent events have rendered thefirst issue moot and academic. On March30, 1988, the Secretary of Justice denied

etitioners! motion for reconsiderationand u he"d the reso"ution of the#ndersecretary of Justice sustainin$ the%ity &isca"!s findin$ of a rima facie casea$ainst etitioners. ' second motion forreconsideration fi"ed by etitioner (e"tran)as denied by the Secretary of Justice on' ri" *, 1988. On a ea", the +resident,throu$h the -ecutive Secretary,affirmed the reso"ution of the Secretaryof Justice on May , 1988. /he motion forreconsideration )as denied by the

-ecutive Secretary on May 1 , 1988.ith these deve"o ments, etitioners!

contention that they have been deniedthe administrative remedies avai"ab"eunder the "a) has "ost factua" su ort.

(e"tran is amon$ the etitioners in thiscase. 2e to$ether )ith others )aschar$ed for "ibe" by the resident. %oryherse"f fi"ed a com "aint affidavit a$ainsthim and others. Ma4asiar averred that%ory cannot fi"e a com "aint affidavitbecause this )ou"d defeat her immunityfrom suit. 2e $rounded his contention onthe rinci "e that a resident cannot besued. 2o)ever, if a resident )ou"d suethen the resident )ou"d a""o) herse"f tobe "aced under the court5s 6urisdictionand converse"y she )ou"d be consentin$

to be sued bac4. '"so, considerin$ thefunctions of a resident, the residentmay not be ab"e to a ear in court to bea )itness for herse"f thus she may be"iab"e for contem t.

ISSUE:

hether or not the +resident ofthe +hi"i ines, under the%onstitut ion, may initiatecrimina" roceedin$s a$ainst the

etitioners throu$h the fi"in$ of acom "aint affidavit7

THE COURTS RULING:

/he rationa"e for the $rant to the+resident of the rivi"e$e of immunity

from suit is to assure the e-ercise of+residentia" duties and functions freefrom any hindrance or distraction,considerin$ that bein$ the %hief

-ecutive of the overnment is a 6obthat, aside from requirin$ a"" of theoffice ho"der5s time, a"so demandsundivided attention. (ut this rivi"e$e ofimmunity from suit ertains to the+resident by virtue of the office and maybe invo4ed on"y by the ho"der of theoffice not by any other erson in the+resident5s beha"f. /hus, an accused "i4e(e"tran et a", in a crimina" case in )hichthe +resident is com "ainant cannot raisethe residentia" rivi"e$e as a defense to

revent the case from roceedin$a$ainst such accused.

Moreover, there is nothin$ in our "a)sthat )ou"d revent the +resident from)aivin$ the rivi"e$e. /hus, if so mindedthe +resident may shed the rotectionafforded by the rivi"e$e and submit tothe court5s 6urisdiction. /he choice of)hether to e-ercise the rivi"e$e or to)aive it is so"e"y the +resident5s

rero$ative. :t is a decision that cannotbe assumed and im osed by any other

erson.

's to etitioner (e"tran!s c"aim that toa""o) the "ibe" case to roceed )ou"d

roduce a ;chi""in$ effect; on ressfreedom, the %ourt finds no basis at thissta$e to ru"e on the oint. /he etitionsfai" to estab"ish that ub"ic res ondents,throu$h their se arate acts, $rave"yabused their discretion as to amount to

"ac4 of 6urisdiction. 2ence, the )rits ofcertiorari and rohibition rayed forcannot issue.

&indin$ no $rave abuse of discretionamount in$ to e-cess o r "ac4 of

6urisdiction on the art of the ub"icres ondents, the court dismissed the

etitions.

TITLE : ESTRADA VS. DESIERTO

CITATION: G.R. NO. 146710 1!DATE: MARCH ", "001

FACTS:

:n the May 11, 1998 e"ections, etitioner Jose h strada )as e"ected +resident)hi"e res ondent "oria Maca a$a"'rroyo )as e"ected Vice +resident. &romthe be$innin$ of his term, ho)ever,

etitioner )as "a$ued by rob"ems thats"o)"y eroded his o u"arity. On Octoberre resentatives or more than 1?3 of a""the m em bers of the 2ouse of@e resentatives to the Senate. On=ovember 0, 000, the Senate forma""yo ened the im eachment tria" of the

etitioner. On January 1 , 001, by avote of 11 10, the senator 6ud$es ru"eda$ainst the o enin$ of the secondenve"o e )hich a""e$ed"y containedevidence sho)in$ that etitioner he"d+3.3 bi""ion in a secret ban4 accountunder the name AJose Ve"arde.B

/he ru"in$ )as met by a s ontaneousoutburst of an$er that hit the streets ofthe metro o"is. /hereafter, the 'rmed&orces and the +=+ )ithdre) theirsu ort to the strada $overnment.Some %abinet secretarieundersecretaries, assistant secretariesand bureau chiefs resi$ned from their

osts.

On January 0, 001, at about 1 noon,%hief Justice Cavide administered theoath to res ondent 'rroyo as +resident ofthe +hi"i ines. On the same day,

etitioner issued a ress statement thathe )as "eavin$ Ma"acanan$ +a"ace forthe sa4e of eace and in order to be$inthe hea"in$ rocess of the nation. :t a"soa eared that on the same day, hesi$ned a "etter statin$ that he )astransmittin$ a dec"aration that he )asunab"e to e-ercise the o)ers and dutiesof his office and that by o eration of "a)and the %onstitution, the Vice +residentsha"" be the 'ctin$ +resident. ' co y ofthe "et ter )a s sent to S ea4er&uentebe""a and Senate +resident

+imente" on the same day.'fter his fa"" from the o)er, the

etitioner5s "e$a" rob"ems a eared inc"usters. Severa" cases revious"y fi"eda$ainst him in the Office of theOmbudsman )ere set in motion.

ISSUES:

hether or not the etitionerresi$ned as +resident7

hether or not the etitioner ison"y tem orari"y unab"e to act as+resident7

THE COURTS RULING:

/he etitioner denies he resi$ned as+resident or that he suffers from a

ermanent disabi"ity. @esi$nation is afactua" question. :n order to have a va"idresi$nation, there must be an intent to


2/32

resi$n and the intent must be cou "ed byacts of re"inquishment. /he va"idity of aresi$nation is not $overned by anyforma" requirement as to form. :t can beora". :t can be )ritten. :t can be e- ress.: t can be im "ied. 's "on$ as theresi$nation is c"ear, it must be $iven"e$a" effect. :n the cases at bar, the factssho) that etitioner did not )rite anyforma" "etter of resi$nation before"eavin$ Ma"acanan$ +a"ace.

%onsequent"y, )hether or not etitionerresi$ned has to be determined from hisacts and omissions before, durin$ andafter Jan. 0, 001 or by the tota"ity of

rior, contem oraneous and osteriorfacts and circumstantia" evidencebearin$ a materia" re"evance on theissue. /he %ourt had an authoritative)indo) on the state of mind of the

etitioner rovided by the diary of-ecutive Sec. 'n$ara seria"iDed in the

+hi". Cai"y :nquirer. Curin$ the first sta$eof ne$otiation bet)een strada and theo osition, the to ic )as a"ready about a

eacefu" and order"y transfer of o)er.

/he resi$nation of the etitioner )asim "ied. Curin$ the second round ofne$otiation, the resi$nation of the

etitioner )as a$ain treated as a $ivenfact. /he on"y unsett"ed oints at thatt ime )ere the measures to beunderta4en by the arties durin$ andafter the transition eriod.

/he %ourt he"d that the resi$nation ofthe etitioner cannot be doubted. :t )asconfirmed by his "eavin$ Ma"acanan$. :nthe ress re"ease containin$ his fina"statement, E1F he ac4no)"ed$ed theoath ta4in$ of the res ondent as+resident of the @e ub"ic, but )ith the

reservation about its "e$a"ity E F heem hasiDed he )as "eavin$ the +a"ace,the seat of the residency, for the sa4eof eace and in order to be$in thehea"in$ rocess of the nation. 2e did notsay he )as "eavin$ the +a"ace due to any4ind of inabi"ity and that he )as $oin$ toreassume the residency as soon as the

disabi"ity disa ears E3F he e- ressedhis $ratitude to the eo "e for theo ortunity to serve them EFhe ca""ed on his su orters to 6oin him inthe romotion of a constructive nationa"s irit of reconci"iation and so"idarity. /he%ourt a"so tac4"ed the contention of the

etitioner that he is mere"y tem orari"yunab"e to erform the o)ers and dutiesof the residency, and hence is a+resident on "eave. /he inabi"ity c"aim iscontained in the Jan. 0, 001 "etter of

etitioner sent to Senate +res. +imente"and S ea4er &uentebe""a. Ces ite said"etter, the 2ouse of @e resentatives

assed a reso"ution su ortin$ theassum tion into office by 'rroyo as+resident. /he Senate a"so assed areso"ution confirmin$ the nomination of

uin$ona as Vice +resident. (oth housesof %on$ress have reco$niDed res ondent'rroyo as the +resident. :m "icit"y c"ear inthat reco$nition is the remise that theinabi"ity of etitioner strada is no "on$er

tem orary. %on$ress has c"ear"y re6ectedetitioner5s c"aim of inabi"ity. /he %ourtcannot ass u on etitioner5s c"aim ofinabi"ity to dischar$e the o)ers andduties of the residency. /he question is

o"itica" in nature and addressed so"e"yto %on$ress by constitutiona" fiat. :t is a

o"itica" issue )hich cannot be decidedby the %ourt )ithout trans$ressin$ the

rinci "e of se aration of o)ers.

TITLE : ALMONTE VS. VASQUEZ

CITATION: G.R. NO. 9!367DATE: MA# "3, 199!

FACTS:

@es ondent, Ombudsman, requiresetitioners =erio @o$ado and "isa

@ivera, as chief accountant and recordcustodian, res ective"y, of the conomic:nte""i$ence and :nvesti$ation (ureauE ::(F to roduce ;a"" documents re"atin$to +ersona" Services &unds for the year1988; and a"" evidence such as vouchersfrom enforcin$ his orders. +etitioner'"monte )as former"y %ommissioner ofthe ::(, )hi"e +ereD is %hief of the ::(!s(ud$et and &isca" Mana$ement Civision.

/he sub oena duces tecum )as issuedby the Ombudsman in connection )ithhis investi$ation of an anonymous "ettera""e$in$ that funds re resentin$ savin$sfrom unfi""ed ositions in the ::( hadbeen i""e$a""y disbursed. /he "etter,

ur ortin$ to have been )ritten by anem "oyee of the ::( and a concernedcitiDen, )as addressed to the Secretaryof &inance, )ith co ies furnished severa"$overnment offices, inc"udin$ the Officeof the Ombudsman.

/he "etter reads in ertinent artsG thatthe EIIB has a syndicate headed by theChief of Budget Div ision who is

manipulating funds and also the brain ofthe so called "ghost agents" or the"Emergency Intelligence gents" !EI #that when the agency had salarydifferential last $ct %&& all money for thewhole plantilla were released and fromthat alone' (illions were saved andconverted to ghost agents of EI # lmostall EIIB agents collects payroll from thebig time smuggler syndicate monthlyand bro)ers every wee) for them not tobe apprehended.

:n his comment on the "etter com "aint,etitioner '"monte denied a"" the

a""e$ations )ritten on the anonymous

"etter. +etitioners moved to quash thesub oena and the sub oena ducestecum but )ere denied. Cisc"osure ofthe documents in question is resisted)ith the c"aim of rivi"e$e of an a$encyof the $overnment on the $round that;4no)"ed$e of ::(!s documents re"ativeto its +ersona" Services &unds and its

"anti""a ) i"" necessari"y "ead 4no)"ed$e of its o erations, movements,tar$ets, strate$ies, and tactics and the)ho"e of its bein$; and this cou"d;destroy the ::(.;

ISSUE:

hether etitioners can beordered to roduce documentsre"atin$ to ersona" services andsa"ary vouchers of em "oyees on the "ea that suchdocuments are c"assified )ithoutvio"atin$ their equa" rotection of"a)s7

THE COURTS RULING:

't common "a) a $overnmenta" rivi"e$ea$ainst disc"osure is reco$niDed )ithres ect to state secrets bearin$ onmi"itary, di "omatic and simi"ar mattersand in addition, rivi"e$e to )ithho"d theidentity of ersons )ho furnishinformation of vio"ation of "a)s. :n the

case at bar, there is no c"aim thatmi"itary or di "omatic secrets )i"" bedisc"osed by the roduction of records

ertainin$ to the ersonne" of the ::(.:ndeed, ::(!s function is the $atherin$and eva"uation of inte""i$ence re orts andinformation re$ardin$ ;i""e$a" activitiesaffectin$ the nationa" economy, such as,but not "imited to, economic sabota$e,smu$$"in$, ta- evasion, do""ar sa"tin$.;%onsequent"y, )hi"e in cases )hichinvo"ve state secrets it may be sufficientto determine from the circumstances ofthe case that there is reasonab"e dan$erthat com u"sion of the evidence )i""e- ose mi"itary matters ) ithout

com e""in$ roduction no simi"ar e-cusecan be made for a rivi"e$e restin$ onother considerations.

/he Ombudsman is investi$atin$ acom "aint that severa" items in the ::()ere fi""ed by fictitious ersons and thatthe a""otments for these items in 1988


3/32

)ere used for i""e$a" ur oses. /he"anti""a and other ersonne" records are

re"evant to his investi$ation as thedesi$nated A rotectors of the eo "eB ofthe %onstitution. =or is there vio"ation of

etitioners! ri$ht to the equa" rotectionof the "a)s. +etitioners com "ain that ;ina"" forum and tribuna"s. /he a$$rieved

arties can on"y ha"e res ondents viatheir verified com "aints or s)ornstatements )ith their identities fu""ydisc"osed,; )hi"e in roceedin$s beforethe Off ice of the Om budsmananonymous "etters suffice to start aninvesti$ation.

:n the first "ace, there can be noob6ection to this rocedure because it is

rovided in the %onstitution itse"f. :n thesecond "ace, it is a arent that in

ermittin$ the fi"in$ of com "aints ;in anyform and in a manner,; the framers ofthe %onstitution too4 into account the)e"" 4no)n reticence of the eo "e )hich4ee them from com "ainin$ a$ainstofficia" )ron$doin$s. 's this %ourt hadoccasion to oint out, the Office of theOmbudsman is different from the otherinvesti$atory and rosecutory a$enciesof the $overnment because those sub6ectto its 6urisdiction are ub"ic officia"s )ho,throu$h officia" ressure and inf"uence,can quash, de"ay or dismissinvesti$ations he"d a$ainst them. On theother hand com "ainants are more oftenthan not oor and sim "e fo"4 )ho cannotafford to hire "a)yers.

&ina""y, it is contended that the issuanceof the sub oena duces tecum )ou"dvio"ate etitioners! ri$ht a$ainst se"fincrimination. :t is enou$h to state thatthe documents required to be roduced

in this case are ub"ic records and thoseto )hom the sub oena duces tecum isdirected are $overnment officia"s in)hose ossession or custody thedocuments are. Moreover, i f, as

etitioners c"aim the disbursement bythe :: of funds for ersona" service hasa"ready been c"eared by the %O', there

is no reason )hy they shou"d ob6ect tothe e-amination of the documents byres ondent Ombudsman.

TITLE : DOROMAL VS.SANDIGANBAYAN

CITATION: G.R. NO. 8!468DATE: SE$TEMBER 7, 1989

FACTS:

+ettioner, Huintin S. Coroma", a former%ommissioner of the +residentia"%ommission on ood overnmentE+% F, for vio"ation of the 'nti raft and%orru t +ractices 'ct E@' 3019F, Sec.3EhF, in connection )ith his shareho"din$sand osition as resident and director ofthe Coroma" :nternationa" /radin$%or oration EC:/%F )hich submitted bidsto su "y + 1 mi""ion )orth of e"ectronic,e"ectrica", automotive, mechanica" andair conditionin$ equi ment to theCe artment of ducation, %u"ture andS orts Eor C %SF and the =ationa"Man o)er and Iouth %ounci" Eor =MI%F.:nformation )as then fi"ed by theA/anodbayanB a$ainst Coroma" for thesaid vio"ation and a re"iminaryinvesti$ation )as conducted.

/he etitioner then fi"ed a etition forcertiorari and rohibition questionin$ the

6urisdiction of the A/anodbayanB to fi"ethe information )ithout the a rova" ofthe Ombudsman. /he Su reme %ourthe"d that the incumbent /anodbayanEca""ed S ecia" +rosecutor under the198* %onstitution and )ho is su osedto retain o)ers and duties =O/ :V =to the OmbudsmanF is c"ear"y )ithoutauthority to conduct re"iminary

investi$ations and to direct the fi"in$ ofcrimina" cases )ith the Sandi$anbayan,e-ce t u on orders of the Ombudsman.Subsequent"y annu""in$ the informationfi"ed by the A/anodbayanB.

' ne) information, du"y a roved by theOmbudsm an, )as f i"ed in theSandi$anbayan, a""e$in$ that theCoroma", a ub"ic officer, bein$ then a%ommissioner of the +residentia"%ommission on ood overnment, didthen and there )i""fu""y and un"a)fu""y,

artici ate in a business throu$h theCoroma" :nternationa" /radin$%or oration, a fami"y cor oration of)hich he is the +resident, and )hichcom any artici ated in the biddin$sconducted by the Ce artment of

ducation, %u"ture and S orts and the=ationa" Man o)er Iouth %ounci",)hich act or artici ation is rohibited by"a) and the constitution. /he etitionerfi"ed a motion to quash the informationon the $round that it )as inva"id sincethe re had been no re" iminaryinvesti$ation for the ne) information that)as fi"ed a$ainst him.

/he motion )as denied bySandi$anbayan c"aimin$ that another

re"iminary investi$ation is unnecessarybecause both o"d and ne) informationinvo"ve the same sub6ect matter.

ISSUES:

hether or not the act ofCoroma" )ou"d constitute avio"ation of the %onstitution7

hether or not re"iminaryinvesti$ation is necessary even if

both informations invo"ve thesame sub6ect matter7

hether or not the informationsha"" be effected as inva"id due tothe absence of re"iminaryinvesti$ation7

THE COURTS RULING:

/he resence of a si$ned documentbearin$ the si$nature of Coroma" as artof the a "ication to bid sho)s that hecan ri$htfu""y be char$ed )ith havin$

artici ated in a business )hich act isabso"ute"y rohibited by Section 13 of'rtic"e V:: of the %onstitution; because;the C:/% remained a fami"y cor orationin )hich Coroma" has at "east an indirectinterest.; S%&'()* 13, A+'(& % VII198* %onstitution rovides that ;the+resident, Vice +resident, the membersof the %abinet and their de uties orassistants sha"" not... durin$ EtheirFtenure, direct"y or indirect"y artici ate inany business.

/he ri$ht of the accused to a re"iminaryinvesti$ation is ;a substantia" one.; :tsdenia" over his o osition is a ; re6udicia"error, in that it sub6ects the accused tothe "oss of "ife, "iberty, or ro erty)ithout due rocess of "a); rovided bythe %onstitut ion. Since the f irsinformation )as annu""ed, the

re"iminary investi$ation conducted atthat time sha"" a"so be considered asvoid. Cue to that fact, a ne) re"iminaryinvesti$ation must be conducted.

/he absence of re"iminary investi$ationdoes not affect the court!s 6urisdictionover the case. =or do they im air theva"idity of the information or other)iserender it defective but, if there )ere no

re"iminary investi$ations and thedefendants, before enterin$ their "ea,invite the attention of the court to theirabsence, the court, instead of dismissin$

the information shou"d conduct suchinvesti$ation, order the fisca" to conductit or remand the case to the inferior courtso that the re"iminary investi$ation maybe conducted.

/he etition for certiorari and rohibition)as $ranted. /he Sandi$anbayan sha""


4/32

immediate"y remand %rimina" %ase =o.1 893 to the Office of the Ombudsmanfor re"iminary investi$ation and sha""ho"d in abeyance the roceedin$s beforeit endin$ the resu"t of suchinvesti$ation.

TITLE : CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

CITATION: 194 SCRA 317 G.R. NO.83896DATE: FEBRUAR# "", 1991

FACTS:

/he etitioners, :$nacio +. Kacsina, Kuis@. Mauricio, 'ntonio @. Huintos and Juan

/. Cavid for etitioners in 8389 and Juan /. Cavid for etitioners in 8381>. (oth

etitions )ere conso"idated and arebein$ reso"ved 6oint"y as both see4 adec"aration of unconstitutiona"ity of

-ecutive Order =o. 8< issued by+resident %oraDon %. 'quino. -ecutiveOrder =o. 8


5/32


6/32

etitioner can rove that he did notresi$n, sti"", he cannot successfu""y c"aimthat he is a +resident on "eave on the$round that he is mere"y unab"e to$overn tem orari"y. /hat c"aim has been"aid to rest by %on$ress and the decisionthat res ondent 'rroyo is the de 6ure+resident made by a co equa" branch of$overnment cannot be revie)ed by theSu reme %ourt. /he etition )asdismissed.

TITLE : MARCOS VS. MANGLAPUS

CITATION: 177 SCRA 668 AND 178SCRA 769 G.R. NO. 88"11DATE: SE$TEMBER 1!, 1989

FACTS:

/his case invo"ves a etition ofmandamus and rohibition as4in$ thecourt to order the res ondents Secretaryof &orei$n 'ffairs, etc. /o issue a trave"documents to former +res. Marcos andthe immediate members of his fami"yand to en6oin the im "ementation of the+resident!s decision to bar their return tothe +hi"i ines. +etitioners assert thatthe ri$ht of the Marcoses to return in the+hi"i ines is $uaranteed by the (i"" of@i$hts, s ecifica""y Sections 1 and .

/hey contended that +res. 'quino is)ithout o)er to im air the "iberty ofabode of the Marcoses because on"y acourt may do so )ithin the "imits

rescribed by "a). =or the +residentim air their ri$ht to trave" because no"a) has authoriDed her to do so. /heyfurther assert that under internationa""a), their r i$ht to return to the

+hi"i ines is $uaranteed articu"ar"y bythe #niversa" Cec"aration of 2uman@i$hts and the :nternationa" %ovenant on%ivi" and +o"itica" @i$hts, )hich has beenratified by the +hi"i ines.

ISSUE:

hether or not, in the e-ercise ofthe o)ers $ranted by theconstitution, the +residentE'quinoF may rohibit theMarcoses from returnin$ to the+hi"i ines7

THE COURTS RULING:

; :t must be em hasiDed that theindividua" ri$ht invo"ved is not the ri$htto trave" from the +hi"i ines to othercountries or )ithin the +hi"i ines. /heseare )hat the ri$ht to trave" )ou"dnorma""y connote. ssentia""y, the ri$htinvo"ved in this case at bar is the ri$ht toreturn to one!s country, a distinct ri$htunder internationa" "a), inde endentfrom a"thou$h re"ated to the ri$ht totrave". /hus, the #niversa" Cec"aration of2uman @i$hts and the :nternationa"%ovenant on %ivi" and +o"itica" @i$htstreat the ri$ht to freedom of movementand abode )ithin the territory of a state,the ri$ht to "eave the country, and theri$ht to enter one!s country as se arateand distinct ri$hts. hat the Cec"arations ea4s of is the ;ri$ht to freedom ofmovement and residence )ithin theborders of each state;. On the otherhand, the %ovenant $uarantees the ri$htto "iberty of movement and freedom tochoose his residence and the ri$ht to befree to "eave any country, inc"udin$ hiso)n. Such ri$hts may on"y be restrictedby "a)s rotectin$ the nationa" security,

ub"ic order, ub"ic hea"th or mora"s orthe se arate ri$hts of others.

2o)ever, ri$ht to enter one!s countrycannot be arbitrari"y de rived. :t )ou"dbe therefore ina ro riate to construethe "imitations to the ri$ht to return toones country in the same conte-t asthose ertainin$ to the "iberty of abodeand the ri$ht to trave". /he (i"" of ri$htstreats on"y the "iberty of abode and the

ri$ht to trave", but it is a )e"" consideredvie) that the ri$ht to return may beconsidered, as a $enera""y acce ted

rinci "e of :nternationa" Ka) and underour %onstitution as art of the "a) of the"and.

/he court he"d that +resident did not actarbitrari"y or )ith $rave abuse ofdiscretion in determinin$ that the returnof the &ormer +res. Marcos and his fami"y

oses a serious threat to nationa" interestand )e"fare. +resident 'quino hasdetermined that the destabi"iDationcaused by the return of the Marcoses)ou"d )i e a)ay the $ains achieveddurin$ the ast fe) years after theMarcos re$ime.

/he return of the Marcoses oses aserious threat and therefore rohibitin$their return to the +hi"i ines, the instant

etition )as C:SM:SS C.

TITLE : BIRAOGO ET AL VS. PHILTRUTH COMMISSIONS

CITATION: G.R. 19"93!DATE: DECEMBER 7, "010

FACTS:

+resident 'quino si$ned . O. =o. 1estab"ishin$ +hi"i ine /ruth %ommissionof 010 E+/%F dated Ju"y 30, 010. +/% isa mere ad hoc body formed under theOffice of the +resident )ith the rimarytas4 to investi$ate re orts of $raft andcorru tion committed by third "eve"

ub"ic officers and em "oyees, their corinci a"s, accom "ices and accessories

durin$ the revious administration, andto submit its findin$ and

recommendations to the +resident,%on$ress and the Ombudsman. +/% hasa"" the o)ers of an investi$ative body.(ut it is not a quasi 6udicia" body as itcannot ad6udicate, arbitrate, reso"ve,sett"e, or render a)ards in dis utesbet)een contendin$ arties.

'"" it can do is $ather, co""ect and assessevidence of $raft and corru tion andma4e recommendations. :t may havesub oena o)ers but it has no o)er tocite eo "e in contem t, much "ess ordertheir arrest. '"thou$h it is a fact findin$body, it cannot determine from suchfacts if robab"e cause e-ists as to)arrant the fi"in$ of information in ourcourts of "a).

+etitioners as4ed the %ourt to dec"are itunconstitutiona" and to en6oin the +/%from erformin$ its functions. /heyar$ued thatG

EaF .O. =o. 1 vio"ates se aration oo)ers as it arro$ates the o)er of the

%on$ress to create a ub"ic office anda ro riate funds for its o eration.

EbF /he rovision of (oo4 :::, %ha ter 10,Section 31 of the 'dministrative %ode of198* cannot "e$itimiDe .O. =o. 1because the de"e$ated authority of the+resident to structura""y reor$aniDe theOffice of the +resident to achieveeconomy, sim "icity and efficiency doesnot inc"ude the o)er to create anentire"y ne) ub"ic office )hich )ashitherto ine-istent "i4e the A/ruth%ommission.B

EcF .O. =o. 1 i""e$a""y amended th%onstitution and statutes )hen it vestedthe A/ruth %ommissionB )ith quasi

6udicia" o)ers du "icatin$, if nosu ersedin$, those of the Office of theOmbudsman created under the 198*%onstitution and the COJ created underthe 'dministrative %ode of 198*.

EdF .O. =o. 1 vio"ates the equ

rotection c"ause as it se"ective"y tar$etsfor investi$ation and rosecution officia"sand er sonne" o f the reviouadministration as if corru tion is their

ecu"iar s ecies even as it e-c"udesthose of the other administrations, astand resent, )ho may be indictab"e.


7/32


8/32

be equa"ity amon$ equa"s as determinedaccordin$ to a va"id c"assification. qua"

rotection c"ause ermits c"assification.Such c"assification, ho)ever, to be va"idmust ass the test of reasonab"eness.

/he test has four requisitesG E1F /hec"assification rests on substantia"distinctions E F :t is $ermane to the

ur ose of the "a) E3F :t is not "imited toe-istin$ conditions on"y and E>. E )as fi"ed before the %ourt of ' ea"s,

doc4eted as %' .@. S+ =o. >889 . /heetition )as dismissed outri$ht forG E1F

fai"ure to submit a )ritten e- "anation)hy ersona" service )as not done onthe adverse arty E F fai"ure to attachaffidavit of service E3F fai"ure to indicatethe materia" dates )hen co ies of theorders of the "o)er court )ere receivedE to substitute a "ost a ea". :n essence,etitioner ar$ues that the tria" court

erred in en6oinin$ it from causin$ thetransfer of the C =@ L:: @e$iona" Offices,considerin$ that it )as done ursuant toC =@ 'dministrative Order 99 1


9/32

and E>F the San$$unian$ +an$"un$sond,throu$h a reso"ution, requested theC =@ Secretary to reconsider the orders.2o)ever, these concern issuesaddressed to the )isdom of the transferrather than to its "e$a"ity. :t is basic inour form of $overnment that the 6udiciarycannot inquire into the )isdom ore- ediency of the acts of the e-ecutiveor the "e$is"ative de artment,N < foreach de artment is su reme andinde endent of the others, and each is

devoid of authority not on"y to encroachu on the o)ers or fie"d of actionassi$ned to any of the other de artment,but a"so to inquire into or ass u on theadvisabi"ity or )isdom of the acts

erformed, measures ta4en or decisionsmade by the other de artments.

/he Su reme %ourt shou"d not bethou$ht of as havin$ been tas4ed )iththe a)esome res onsibi"ity of overseein$the entire bureaucracy. #n"ess there is ac"ear sho)in$ of constitutiona" infirmityor $rave abuse of discretion amountin$to "ac4 or e-cess of 6urisdiction, the%ourt5s e-ercise of the 6udicia" o)er,

ervasive and "imit"ess it may seem tobe, sti"" must succumb to the aramountdoctrine of se aration of o)ers.N'fter a carefu" revie) of the records ofthe case, )e find that this 6uris rudentia"e"ement of abuse of discretion has notbeen sho)n to e-ist.

:n vie) of the fore$oin$, the etition forrevie) )as $ranted. /he reso"utions ofthe %ourt of ' ea"s in %' .@. S+ =o.>889 dated May 31, 000 and 'u$ust

0, 001, as )e"" as the decision dated January 1, in %ivi"

%ase =o 389, )ere @ V @S C and S /'S:C . /he ermanent in6unction, )hichen6oined the etitioner from enforcin$the Memorandum Order of the C =@ L::@e$iona" -ecutive Cirector )as "ifted.

TITLE : MONDANO VS. SILVOSA

CITATION: 97 $HIL 143DATE: MA# 30, 19!!

FACTS:

Mondano )as the mayor of Mainit,Suri$ao. ' com "aint )as fi"ed a$ainsthim for ra e and concubina$e. /heinformation reached the 'ssistant

-ecutive Secretary )ho ordered the$overnor to investi$ate the matter.Si"vosa then summoned Mondano and

the "atter a eared before him. /hereafter Si"vosa sus ended Mondano.Mondano fi"ed a etition for rohibitionen6oinin$ the $overnor from further

roceedin$. Si"vosa invo4ed the @'%)hich rovided that he, as art of thee-ecutive and by virtue o the order $ivenby the 'sst -ec Sec, is )ith Adirectcontro", direction, and su ervision overa"" bureaus and offices under his

6urisdiction B and to that end Amay orderthe investi$ation of any act or conduct ofany erson in the service of any bureauor office under his Ce artment and inconnection there)ith may a oint acommittee or desi$nate an officia" or

erson )ho sha"" conduct suchinvesti$ations.

ISSUE:

hether or not the overnor cane-ercise the o)er of contro"7

THE COURTS RULING:

/he e-ecutive de artments of theovernment created and or$aniDed

before the a rova" of the %onstitutioncontinued to e-ist as AauthoriDed by "a)unti" the %on$ress sha"" rovideother)ise.B /he %onstitution rovidesGA/he +resident sha"" have contro" of a""the e-ecutive de artments, bureaus, oroffices, e-ercise $enera" su ervision overa"" "oca" $overnments as may be

rovided by "a), and ta4e care that the"a)s be faithfu""y e-ecuted.B #nder thisconstitutiona" rovision the +resident has

been invested )ith the o)er of contro"of a"" the e-ecutive de artments,bureaus, or offices, but not of a"" "oca"$overnments over )hich he has been$ranted on"y the o)er of $enera"su ervision as may be rovided by "a) .

/he Ce artment head as a$ent of the+resident has direct contro" andsu ervision over a"" bureaus and officesunder his 6urisdiction as rovided for insection *9EcF of the @evised

'dministrative %ode, but he does nothave the same cont ro" of "oca"$overnments as that e-ercised by himover bureaus and offices under his

6urisdiction. Ki4e)ise, his authority toorder the investi$ation of any act orconduct of any erson in the service ofany bureau or offi ce under hi sde artment is confined to bureaus oroffices under his 6urisdiction and does note-tend to "oca" $overnments over )hich,as a"ready stated, the +residente-ercises on"y $enera" su ervision asmay be rovided by "a). :f the rovisionsof section *9

EcF of the @evised 'dministrative %odeare to be construed as conferrin$ u onthe corres ondin$ de artment headdirect contro", direction, and su ervisionover a"" "oca" $overnments and that forthat reason he may order theinvesti$ation of an officia" of a "oca"$overnment for ma"feasance in office,such inter retation )ou"d be contrary tothe rovisions of ar 1, sec 10, 'rtic"e *,of the 193> %onstitution. :f A$enera"su ervision over a"" "oca" $overnmentsBis to be construed as the same o)er$ranted to the Ce artment 2ead in sec*9 EcF of the @'%, then there )ou"d no"on$er be a distinction or differencebet)een the o)er of contro" and that of

su ervision. :n administrative "a)su ervision means overseein$ or the

o)er or authority of an officer to seethat subordinate officers erform theirduties. :f the "atter fai" or ne$"ect to fu"fi""them the former may ta4e such action orste as rescribed by "a) to ma4e them

erform their duties. %ontro", on theother hand, means the o)er of anofficer to a"ter or modify or nu""ify or setaside )hat a subordinate officer haddone in the erformance of his duties

and to substitute the 6ud$ment of theformer for that of the "atter. Such is theim ort of the rovisions of sec *9 EcF ofthe @'%.

/he %on$ress has e- ress"y ands ecifica""y "od$ed the rovincisu ervision over munici a" officia"s in the

rovincia" $overnor )ho is authoriDed toAreceive and investi$ate com "aintsmade under oath a$ainst munici a"officers for ne$"ect of duty, o ression,corru tion or other form ma"administration of office, andconviction by fina" 6ud$ment of any crimeinvo"vin$ mora" tur itude.B 'nd if thechar$es are serious, Ahe sha"" submit)ritten char$es touchin$ the matter tothe rovincia" board, furnishin$ a co y ofsuch char$es to the accused either

ersona""y or by re$istered mai", and hemay in such case sus end the officer Enotbein$ the munici a" treasurerF endin$action by the board, if in his o inion thechar$e be one affectin$ the officia"inte$rity of the officer in question.B Sec8 of the @evised 'dministrative %odeadds nothin$ to the o)er of su ervisionto be e-ercised by the Ce artment 2eadover the administration of munici a"ities:f it be construed that it does and such

additiona" o)er is the same authority asthat vested in the Ce artment 2ead bysec *9 EcF of the @'%, then sucadditiona" o)er must be deemed tohave been abro$ated by sec10E1F, 'rtic"e*, of the %onstitution.


10/32

TITLE : VILLENA VS. SECRETARY OFINTERIOR

CITATION: 67 $HIL 4!1 G.R. NO. L46!70DATE: A$RIL "1, 1939

FACTS:

+etitioner, Vi""ena )as the then mayor ofMa4ati. 'fter investi$ation, the Secretaryof :nterior recommended the sus ension

of Vi""ena )ith the Office of the resident)ho a roved the same. /he Secretarythen sus ended Vi""ena. Vi""ena averredc"aimin$ that the Secretary has no

6urisdiction over the matter. /he o)er or 6urisdiction is "od$ed in the "oca"$overnment Nthe $overnor ursuant tosec 188 of the 'dministrative %ode.&urther, even if the res ondent Secretaryof the :nterior has o)er of su ervisionover "oca" $overnments, that o)er,accordin$ to the constitution, must bee-ercised in accordance )ith the

rovisions of "a) and the rovisions of"a) $overnin$ tria"s of char$es a$ainste"ective munici a" officia"s are thosecontained in sec 188 of the'dministrative %ode as amended.

:n other )ords, the Secretary of the:nterior must e-ercise his su ervisionover "oca" $overnments, if he has that

o)er under e-istin$ "a), in accordance)ith sec 188 of the 'dministrative%ode, as amended, as the "atter

rovisions $overn the rocedure to befo""o)ed in sus endin$ and unishin$e"ective "oca" officia"s )hi"e sec *9 E%F ofthe 'dministrative %ode is the $enera"a) )hich must yie"d to the s ecia" "a).

ISSUE:

hether or not the Secretary of:nterior can sus end an K #officia" under investi$ation7

THE COURTS RULING:

/here is no c"ear and e- ress $rant ofo)er to the secretary to sus end a

mayor of a munici a"ity )ho is underinvesti$ation. On the contrary, the o)er

a ears "od$ed in the rovincia" $overnorby sec 188 of the 'dministrative %ode)hich rovides that A/he rovincia"$overnor sha"" receive and investi$atecom "aints made under oath a$ainstmunici a" officers for ne$"ect of duty,o ression, corru tion or other form ofma"administration of office, andconviction by fina" 6ud$ment of any crimeinvo"vin$ mora" tur itude. /he fact,ho)ever, that the o)er of sus ension ise- ress"y $ranted by sec 188 of the'dministrative %ode to the rovincia"$overnor does not mean that the $rant isnecessari"y e-c"usive and rec"udes theSecretary of the :nterior from e-ercisin$a simi"ar o)er.

&or instance, counse" for the etitioneradmitted in the ora" ar$ument that the+resident of the +hi"i ines may himse"fsus end the etitioner from office invirtue of his $reater o)er of remova"Esec. 191, as amended, 'dministrative%odeF to be e-ercised conformab"y to"a). :ndeed, if the

+resident cou"d, in the mannerrescribed by "a), remove a munici a"

officia" it )ou"d be a "e$a" incon$ruity ifhe )ere to be devoid of the "esser o)erof sus ension. 'nd the incon$ruity)ou"d be more atent if, ossessed ofthe o)er both to sus end and toremove a rovincia" officia" Esec. 0*8,

'dministrative %odeF, the +resident )ereto be )ithout the o)er to sus end amunici a" officia". /he o)er to sus enda munici a" officia" is not e-c"usive.+reventive sus ension may be issued to$ive )ay for an im artia" investi$ation.

TITLE : LACSON-MAGALLANES CO.INC VS. PAO

CITATION: "1 SCRA 89! G.R. NO. L"7811DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 1967

FACTS:

Ma$a""anes )as ermitted to use andoccu y a "and used for asture in Cavao.

/he said "and )as a forest Done )hich)as "ater dec"ared as an a$ricu"tura"Done. Ma$a""anes then ceded his ri$hts toKM% of )hich he is a co o)ner. +aQo )as

a farmer )ho asserted his c"aim over thesame iece of "and. /he Cirector of Kandsdenied +aQo5s request. /he Secretary of'$ricu"ture "i4e)ise denied his etitionhence it )as e"evated to the Office of the+resident. -ec Sec +a6o ru"ed in favor of+aQo.

KM% averred that the ear"ier decision ofthe Secretary is a"ready conc"usive hencebeyond a ea". 2e a"so averred that thedecision of the -ecutive Secretary is anundue de"e$ation of o)er. /he%onstitution, KM% asserts, does notcontain any rovision )hereby the

residentia" o)er of contro" may bede"e$ated to the -ecutive Secretary.

:t is ar$ued that it is the constitutiona"duty of the +resident to act ersona""yu on the matter.

ISSUE:

hether or not the o)er ofcontro" may be de"e$ated to the

-ec Sec and may it be furtherde"e$ated by the -ecutiveSecretary7

THE COURTS RULING:

/he +resident5s duty to e-ecute the "a)is of constitutiona" ori$in. So, too, is hiscontro" of a"" e-ecutive de artments.

/hus it is, that de artment heads aremen of his confidence. 2is is the o)erto a oint them his, too, is the rivi"e$eto dismiss them at "easure. =atura""y,he contro"s and directs their acts. :m "icitthen is his authority to $o over, confirm,modify or reverse the action ta4en by hisde artment secretaries.

:n this conte-t, it may not be said thatthe +resident cannot ru"e on thecorrectness of a decision of a de artmentsecretary. +arenthetica""y, it may bestated that the ri$ht to a ea" to the+resident re oses u on the +resident5s

o)er of contro" over the e-ecutivede artments. 'nd contro" sim "y meansAthe o)er of an officer to a"ter or modifyor nu""ify or set aside )hat a subordinateofficer had done in the erformance ofhis duties and to substitute the 6ud$mentof the former for that of the "atter.B

:t is correct to say that constitutiona"o)ers there are )hich the +resident

must e-ercise in erson. =ot as correct,ho)ever, is it to say that the %hief

-ecutive may not de"e$ate to his-ecutive Secretary acts )hich the

%onstitution does not command that heerform in erson. @eason is no

)antin$ for this vie).

/he +resident is not e- ected to erformin erson a"" the mu"tifarious e-ecutiveand administrative functions. /he officeof the -ecutive Secretary is an au-i"iaryunit )hich assists the +resident. /he ru"e)hich has thus $ained reco$nition is that


11/32

Aunder our constitutiona" setu the-ecutive Secretary )ho acts for and in

beha"f and by authority of the +residenthas an undis uted 6urisdiction to affirm,modify, or even reverse any orderB thatthe Secretary of '$ricu"ture and =atura"@esources, inc"udin$ the Cirector ofKands, may issue.

TITLE : GANZON V.S COURT OF APPEALS

CITATION: G.R. NO. 93"!"DATE: NOVEMBER 8, 1991

FACTS:

anDon )as the then mayor of :"oi"o %ity.10 com "aints )ere fi"ed a$ainst him on$rounds of misconduct and misfeasanceof office. /he Secretary of Koca"

overnment i ssued a 00 daysus ension a$ainst anDon based on themerits of the com "aints fi"ed a$ainsthim. anDon a ea"ed the issue to the%' and the %' affirmed the sus ensionorder by the Secretary.

anDon asserted that the 198*%onstitution does not authoriDe the+resident nor any of his a"ter e$o tosus end and remove "oca" officia"s this isbecause the 198* %onstitution su orts"oca" autonomy and stren$thens thesame. hat )as $iven by the resent%onstitution )as mere su ervisory

o)er.

ISSUE:

hether or not the Secretary ofKoca" overnment, as the+resident5s a"ter e$o, can

sus end and or remove "oca"officia"s7

THE COURTS RULING:

anDon is under the im ression that the%onstitution has "eft the +resident mere

su ervisory o)ers, )hich su osed"ye-c"udes the o)er of investi$ation, anddenied her contro", )hich a""e$ed"yembraces disci "inary authority. :t is amista4en im ression because "e$a""y,Asu ervisionB is not incom atib"e )ithdisci "inary authority. /he S% hadoccasion to discuss the sco e and e-tentof the o)er of su ervision by the+resident over "oca" $overnment officia"sin contrast to the o)er of contro" $ivento him over e-ecutive officia"s of our

$overnment )herein it )as em hasiDedthat the t)o terms, contro" andsu ervision, are t)o different thin$s)hich differ one from the other inmeanin$ and e-tent.

A:n administration "a) su ervision meansoverseein$ or the o)er or authority ofan officer to see that subordinate officers

erform their duties. :f the "atter fai" orne$"ect to fu"fi"" them the former mayta4e such action or ste as rescribed by"a) to ma4e them erform their duties.%ontro", on the other hand, means the

o)er of an officer to a"ter or modify or

nu""ify of set aside )hat a subordinateofficer had done in the erformance ofhis duties and to substitute the 6ud$mentof the former for that of the "atter.B (utfrom this ronouncement it cannot bereasonab"y inferred that the o)er ofsu ervision of the +resident over "oca"$overnment officia"s does not inc"ude the

o)er of investi$ation )hen in hiso inion the $ood of the ub"ic service sorequires.

/he Secretary of Koca" overnment, asthe a"ter e$o of the resident, insus endin$ anDon is e-ercisin$ a va"id

o)er. 2e ho)ever overste ed byim osin$ a 00 day sus ension.

/he ur$ent motion of etitioner, dated *Se tember 1991 )as $ranted. /hetem orary restrainin$ order dated >Se tember 1991 )as "ifted. @es ondentsare ordered to a""o) etitioner to re

assume his office as e"ected Mayor of:"oi"o %ity effective immediate"y.

/he %ourt of ' ea" is directed to dismiss%' .@. S+ =o. >8'u$ust 1991.

+etitioner, Mayor @odo"fo anDon, maynot be made to serve future sus ensionson account of any of the remainin$administrative char$es endin$ a$ainsthim for acts committed rior to 'u$ust11, 1988.

TITLE : DADOLE VS COMMISSION ON AUDIT

CITATION: G.R. NO. 1"! 3!0DATE: DECEMBER 3, "00"

FACTS:

:n 198 , the @/% and M/% 6ud$es ofMandaue %ity started receivin$ month"y

a""o)ances of +1, 0 each throu$h theyear"y a ro riation ordinance enactedby the San$$unian$ +an"un$sod of thesaid city. :n 1991, Mandaue %ityincreased the amount to +1,>00 for each

6ud$e. On March 1>, 199> EK(% >>F )hich rovidethat :n the "i$ht of the authority $rantedto the "oca" $overnment units under theKoca" overnment %ode to rovide for

additiona" a""o)ances and other benefitsto nationa" $overnment officia"s andem "oyees assi$ned in their "oca"ity, suchadditiona" a""o)ances in the form ofhonorarium at rates not e-ceedin$+1,000.00 in rovinces and cities and+*00.00 in munici a"ities may be $rantedsub6ect to the fo""o)in$ conditionsG aF

/hat the $rant is not mandatory on theart of the K #s bF /hat a"" contractua"

and statutory ob"i$ations of the K #inc"udin$ the im "ementation of @.'.

*>8 sha"" have been fu""y rovided inthe bud$et cF /hat the bud$etaryrequirements?"imitations under Section3 < and 3 > of @.'. *1 0 shou"d besatisfied and?or com "ied )ith and dF

/hat the K # has fu""y im "emented thedevo"ution of functions? ersonne" inaccordance )ith @.'. *1 0.

'ct in$ on the C(M directive, theMandaue %ity 'uditor issued notices ofdisa""o)ance to herein etitioners,name"y, 2onorab"e @/% Jud$es Mercedes

. Cado"e, #"ric @. %aQete, '$ustin @Vesti", 2onorab"e M/% Jud$es /emistoc"esM. (oho"st, Vicente %. &ani"a$ an

i"fredo '. Ca$atan, in e-cess of theamount authoriDed by K(% >>. (e$innin$October, 199


12/32

/he etitioner 6ud$es fi"ed )ith the Officeof the %ity 'uditor a rotest a$ainst thenotices of disa""o)ance. (ut the %ity'uditor treated the rotest as a motionfor reconsideration and indorsed thesame to the %O' @e$iona" Office =o. *. :nturn, the %O' @e$iona" Office referredthe motion to the head office )ith arecommendation that the same bedenied.

On Se tember 1, 199>, res ondent %O'rendered a decision denyin$ etitioners5motion for reconsideration. On =ovember

*, 199>, -ecutive Jud$e MercedesoDo Cado"e, for and in beha"f of theetitioner 6ud$es, fi"ed a motion for

reconsideration of the decision of the%O'. :n a reso"ution dated May 8, 199 ,the %O' denied the motion.

ISSUE:

hether or not theadministrat ive circu"ar or$uide"ine such as Koca" (ud$et%ircu"ar =o. >> renderino erative the o)er of the"e$is"ative body of a city bysettin$ a "imit /o the e-tent ofthe e-ercise of such o)er7

THE COURTS RULING:

'ccordin$ to res ondent %O', even ifK(% >> )ere void, the ordinancesenacted by Mandaue %ity $rantin$additiona" a""o)ances to the etitioner

6ud$es )ou"d Asti"" EbeF bereft of "e$a"basis for )ant of a "a)fu" source of fundsconsiderin$ that the :@' cannot be usedfor such purposes .B @es ondent %O'

sho)ed that Mandaue %ity5s fundsconsisted of "oca""y $enerated revenuesand the :@'. &rom 1989 to 199>,Mandaue %ity5s year"y e- enditurese-ceeded its "oca""y $enerated revenues,thus resu"tin$ in a deficit. Curin$ a""those years, it )as the :@' that enab"edMandaue %ity to incur a sur "us.

@es ondent avers that Mandaue %ityused its :@' to ay for said additiona"a""o)ances and this vio"ated ara$ra h of the S ecia" +rovisions, a$e 10 0, of@' *8 E/he enera" ' ro riations 'ctof 199>F 1N1 and ara$ra h 3 of theS ecia" +rovision, a$e 1 >, of @' * 3E/he enera" ' ro riations 'ct of199


13/32

)e"" as the 2ouse S ea4er,not)ithstandin$ O =o. 3* and theob6ection of the overnor enera", sti""e"ected Mi"ton S rin$er and four othersas (oard of Cirectors of =%%. /hereafter,a 8uo warranto roceedin$ in beha"f ofthe $overnment )as fi"ed a$ainstS rin$er et a" questionin$ the va"idity oftheir e"ection into the (oard of =%%.

ISSUE:

hether or not the Senate+resident as )e"" as the 2ouseS ea4er can va"id"y e"ect the(oard Members of =%%7

THE COURTS RULING:

.O. =o 3* is va"id. :t is in accordance)ith the doctrine of se aration of o)ers.

/he Su reme %ourt em hasiDed that the"e$is"ature creates the ub"ic office but ithas nothin$ to do )ith desi$natin$ the

ersons to fi"" the office. ' ointin$ersons to a ub"ic office is essentia""y

e-ecutive. /he =%% is a $overnmento)ned and contro""ed cor oration. :t )ascreated by %on$ress. /o e-tend the

o)er of %on$ress into a""o)in$ it,throu$h the Senate +resident and the2ouse S ea4er, to a oint members ofthe =%% is a"ready an invasion ofe-ecutive o)ers. /he Su reme %ourtho)ever notes that indeed there aree-ce tions to this ru"e )here the"e$is"ature may a oint ersons to fi""

ub"ic office. Such e-ce tion can befound in the a ointment by the

"e$is"ature of ersons to fi"" offices )ithinthe "e$is"ative branch P this e-ce tion isa""o)ab"e because it does not )ea4enthe e-ecutive branch.

very other consideration to one side,this remains certain /he con$ress of the

#nited States c"ear"y intended that theovernor enera"5s o)er shou"d be

commensurate )ith his res onsibi"ity. /he %on$ress never intended that the

overnor enera" shou"d be sadd"ed )iththe res onsibi"ity of administerin$ the$overnment and of e-ecutin$ the "a)sbut shorn of the o)er to do so. /heinterests of the +hi"i ines )i"" be bestserved by strict adherence to the basic

rinci "es of constitutiona" $overnment.

/here )as no hesitancy in conc"udin$that so much of section < of 'ct =o.

*0>, as amended by section of 'ct =o.8 , as ur orts to vest the votin$o)er of the $overnment o)ned stoc4 in

the =ationa" %oa" %om any in the+resident of the Senate and the S ea4erof the 2ouse of @e resentatives, isunconstitutiona" and void. :t resu"ts,therefore, in the demurrer bein$over ru"ed, and as i t )ou"d beim racticab"e for the defendants toans)er, 6ud$ment sha"" be renderedoustin$ and e-c"udin$ them from theoffices of directors of the =ationa" %oa"%om any.

TITLE : SARMIENTO VS. MISON

CITATION: 1!6 SCRA !49 G.R. NO.79974DATE: DECEMBER 17, 1987

FACTS:

:n this etition for rohibition, theetitioners, )ho are ta- ayers, "a)yers,

members of the :nte$rated (ar of the+hi"i ines and rofessors of%onstitutiona" Ka), see4 to en6oin theres ondent Sa"vador Mison from

erformin$ the functions of the Office of%ommissioner of the (ureau of %ustomsand the res ondent ui""ermo %ara$ue,as Secretary of the Ce artment of

(ud$et, from effectin$ disbursements inayment of Mison5s sa"aries and

emo"uments, on the $round that Mison5sa ointment as %ommissioner of the(ureau of %ustoms is unconstitutiona" byreason of its not havin$ been confirmedby the %ommission on ' ointments.

/he res ondents, on the other hand,maintain the constitutiona"ity ofres ondent Mison5s a ointment )ithoutthe confirmation of the %ommission on

' ointments.ISSUE:

hether or not a"" a ointmentsmade by the resident requirea rova" of the %ommission on' ointments to be va"id7

THE COURTS RULING:

S%&'()* 16, A+'(& % VII of the 198*%onstitution rovides A/he +residentsha"" nominate and, )ith the consent ofthe %ommission on ' ointments,a oint the heads of the e-ecutivede artments, ambassadors, other ub"icministers and consu"s, or officers of thearmed forces from the ran4 of co"one" ornava" ca tain, and other officers )hosea ointments are vested in him in this%onstitution. 2e sha"" a"so a oint a""other officers of the overnment )hosea ointments are not other)ise rovidedfor by "a), and those )hom he may beauthoriDed by "a) to a oint. /he%on$ress may, by "a), vest thea ointment of other officers "o)er inran4 in the +resident a"one, in the courts,or in the heads of the de artments,a$encies, commissions or boards.

/he +resident sha"" have the o)er toma4e a ointments durin$ the recess ofthe %on$ress, )hether vo"untary orcom u"sory, but such a ointments sha""be effective on"y unti" disa rova" by the%ommission on ' ointments or unti" thene-t ad6ournment of the % on$ress.

:t is a arent, that there are four E %onstitution inc"udesAheads of bureausB amon$ those officers)hose a ointments need the consent of


14/32

the %ommission on ' ointments, the198* %onstitution on the other hand,de"iberate"y e-c"uded the osition ofAheads of bureausB from a ointmentsthat need the consent EconfirmationF ofthe %ommission on ' ointments.

%onsequent"y, )e ru"e that the +residentof the +hi"i ines acted )ithin herconstitutiona" authority and o)er ina ointin$ res ondent Sa"vador Mison,%ommissioner of the (ureau of %ustoms,

)ithout submittin$ his nomination to the%ommission on ' ointments forconfirmation. 2e is thus entit"ed toe-ercise the fu"" authority and functionsof the office and to receive a"" thesa"aries and emo"uments ertainin$thereto.

TITLE : CONCEPTION- BAUTISTA VS.SALONGA

CITATION: 17" SCRA 160 G.R. NO.86439DATE: A$RIL 13, 1989

FACTS:

On 'u$ust *, 198*, +resident %ory'quino a ointed etitioner (autista as

ermanent %hairman of the %ommissionon 2uman @i$hts E%2@F. (autista too4her oath of office on Cecember , 1988to %hief Justice Marce"o &ernan andimmediate"y acted as such.

On January 9, 1989, the Secretary of the%ommission on ' ointments E%o'F)rote a "etter to (autista requestin$ forher resence a"on$ )ith severa"documents at the office of %o' on

January 19. (autista refused to be "acedunder %o'!s revie) hence this etitionfi"ed )ith the Su reme %ourt.

hi"e )aitin$ for the ro$ress of thecase, +resident 'quino a ointed2esiquio @. Ma""i""in as ;'ctin$ %hairmanof the %ommission on 2uman @i$hts; buthe )as not ab"e to sit in his a ointive

office because of (autista!s refusa" tosurrender her ost. Ma"i"in invo4ed O1 3 ' )hich rovides that the tenure ofthe %hairman and the %ommissioners ofthe %2@ shou"d be at the "easure of the+resident thus statin$ that (autista sha""be subsequent"y removed as )e"".

ISSUE:

hether or not (autista5sa ointment is sub6ect to %o'5s

confirmation7

THE COURTS RULING:

Since the osition of %hairman of the%2@ is not amon$ the osit ionsmentioned in the first sentence of Sec.1 , 'rt. * of the 198* %onstitution,a ointments to )hich are to be made)ith the confirmation of the %o' itfo""o)s that the a ointment by the+resident of the %hairman of the %2@ isto be made )ithout the revie) or

artici ation of the %o'. /o be morerecise, the a ointment of the

%hairman and Members of the %2@ is nots ecifica""y rovided for in the%onstitution itse"f, un"i4e the %hairmenand Members of the %S%, the %o andthe %O', )hose a ointments aree- ress"y vested by the %onstitution inthe +resident )ith the consent of the%o'. /he +resident a oints the%hairman and Members of the %2@

ursuant to the second sentence in Sec1 , ' rt. *, that i s, )i thou t theconfirmation of the %o' because they areamon$ the officers of $overnmentA)hom he Ethe +residentF may beauthoriDed by "a) to a oint.B 'nd Sec

EcF, O 1 3 authoriDes the +resident toa oint the %hairman and Members ofthe %2@.

(ecause of the fact that the residentsubmitted to the %o' on 1< Jan 1989 thea ointment of (autista, the %o' ar$uedthat the resident thou$h she has theso"e rero$a tive to ma4e %2@

a ointments may from time to time as4confirmation )ith the %o'. /his isuntenab"e accordin$ to the S%. /he%onstitution has b"oc4ed off certaina ointments for the +resident to ma4e)ith the artici ation of the %ommissionon ' ointments, so a"so has the%onstitution mandated that the +residentcan confer no o)er of artici ation inthe %ommission on ' ointments overother a ointments e-c"usive"y reservedfor her by the %onstitution. /he e-ercise

of o"itica" o tions that finds no su ortin the %onstitution cannot be sustained.&urther, even if the resident mayvo"untari"y submit to the commission ona ointments an a ointment that underthe constitution so"e"y be"on$s to her,sti"", there )as no vacancy to )hich ana ointment cou"d be made on 1 E+C 1>Fcreated the %u"tura" %enter of the+hi"i ines E%%+F for the rimary ur oseof ro a$atin$ arts and cu"ture in the+hi"i ines. +C 1> increased themembers of %%+!s (oard from seven tonine trustees. Kater, -ecutive Order =o.10>8, increased further the trustees to11. ventua""y, durin$ the term of@amos, the %%+ (oard inc"uded the

ndri$a rou . strada a ointed sevenne) trustees to the %%+ (oard for a termof four years to re "ace the ndri$a$rou as )e"" as t)o other incumbenttrustees. /he @ufino $rou too4 theiroaths of office and assumed the

erformance of their duties. /he ndri$a$rou fi"ed a etition for quo )arrantoquestionin$ strada!s a ointment ofseven ne) members to the %%+ (oard.

/hey c"aimed that it is on"y )hen the %%+(oard is entire"y vacant may the

+resident of the +hi"i ines fi"" sucvacancies, actin$ in consu"tation )ith theran4in$ officers of the %%+.

/he c"ear and cate$orica" "an$ua$e ofSection EbF of +C 1> states thavacancies in the %%+ (oard sha"" be fi""edby a ma6ority vote of the remainin$trustees. Shou"d on"y one trustee survive,the vacancies sha"" be fi""ed by thesurvivin$ trustee actin$ in consu"tation)ith the ran4in$ officers of the %%+.Shou"d the (oard become entire"yvacant, the vacancies sha"" be fi""ed bythe +resident of the +hi"i ines actin$ inconsu"tation )ith the same ran4in$officers of the %%+. /hus, the remainin$trustees, )hether one or more, e"ecttheir fe""o) trustees for a fi-ed four yearterm. On the other hand, Section EcF of+C 1> does not a""o) trustees to ree"ectfe""o) trustees for more than t)oconsecutive terms.

/he ndri$a $rou asserted that )henformer +resident strada a ointed the@ufino $rou , on"y one seat )as vacantdue to the e- iration of MaQosa!s term.

/he %%+ (oard then had 10 incumbenttrustees. /hey maintained that under the%%+ %harter, the trustees! fi-ed four yearterm cou"d on"y be terminated ;byreason of resi$nation, inca acity, death,or other cause.; +residentia" action )asneither necessary nor 6ustified since the%%+ (oard then sti"" had 10 incumbenttrustees )ho had the statutory o)er tofi"" by e"ection any vacancy in the (oard.


15/32

/he ndri$a $rou refused to acce t thatthe %%+ )as under the su ervision andcontro" of the +resident. /he ndri$a$rou cited Section 3 of +C 1>, )hichstates that the %%+ ;sha"" en6oyautonomy of o"icy and o eration.;@ufino rou G that the "a) cou"d on"yde"e$ate to the %%+ (oard the o)er toa oint officers "o)er in ran4 than thetrustees of the (oard. Section EbF of +C1> authoriDin$ the %%+ trustees to e"ecttheir fe""o) trustees shou"d be dec"ared

unconstitutiona" bein$ re u$nant toSection 1 , 'rtic"e V:: of the 198*%onstitution a""o)in$ the a ointmenton"y of ;officers "o)er in ran4; than thea ointin$ o)er. %' entit"ed the

ndri$a $rou office.

ISSUES:

hether or not there is an inva"id

de"e$ation of the +resident!sa ointin$ o)er under the%onstitution7

hether or not it effective"yde rives the +resident of hisconstitutiona" o)er of contro"and su ervision over the %%+7

THE COURTS RULING:

/he source of the +resident!s o)er toa oint, as )e"" as the Ke$is"ature!sauthority to de"e$ate the o)er toa oint, is found in Section 1 , 'rtic"e V::of the 198* %onstitution )hich rovides the +resident sha"" nominate and, )iththe consent of the %ommission on' ointments, a oint the heads of thee-ecutive de artments, ambassadors,other ub"ic ministers and consu"s, orofficers of the armed forces from theran4 of co"one" or nava" ca tain, and

other officers )hose a ointments arevested in him in this %onstitution. 2esha"" a"so a oint a"" other officers of the

overnment )hose a ointments are notother)ise rovided for by "a), and those)hom he may be authoriDed by "a) toa oint. /he %on$ress may, by "a), vestthe a ointment of other officers "o)er inran4 in the +resident a"one, in the courts,or in the heads of de artments, a$encies,commissions, or board. /he +residentsha"" have the o)er to ma4e

a ointments durin$ the recess of the%on$ress, )hether vo"untary orcom u"sory, but such a ointments sha""be effective on"y unti" disa rova" by the%ommission on ' ointments or unti" thene-t ad6ournment of the %on$ress.

/he o)er to a oint is the rero$ativeof the +resident, e-ce t in thoseinstances )hen the %onstitution rovidesothe r)i se. #sur a tion of th isfundamenta""y -ecutive o)er by theKe$is"ative and Judicia" branches vio"atesthe system of se aration of o)ers thatinheres in our democratic re ub"ican$overnment. #nder Section 1 , 'rtic"eV:: of the 198* %onstitut ion, the+resident a oints three $rou s ofofficers.

1. heads of the -ecutivede artments, ambassadors, other

ub"ic ministers and consu"s,officers of the armed forces fromthe ran4 of co"one" or nava" ca tain,and other officers )hosea ointments are vested in the+resident by the %onstitution )iththe %ommission of ' ointment5sconsent.

. those )hom the +resident may beauthoriDed by "a) to a oint.%onsent not required.

3. a"" other officers of the overnment

)hose a ointments are notother)ise rovided by "a). %onsentnot required a oints the third$rou of officers if the "a) is si"enton )ho is the a ointin$ o)er, or ifthe "a) authoriDin$ the head of ade artment, a$ency, commission, orboard to a oint is dec"aredunconstitutiona".

/hus, if Section EbF and EcF of +C 1> isfound unconstitutiona", the +residentsha"" a oint the trustees of the %%+(oard because the trustees fa"" under thethird $rou of officers. /here is a fourth$rou of "o)er ran4ed officers )hosea ointments %on$ress may by "a) vestin the heads of de artments, a$encies,commissions, or boards.

/he residentia" o)er of contro" over

the -ecutive branch of $overnmente-tends to a"" e-ecutive em "oyees fromthe Ce artment Secretary to the "o)"iestc"er4. 3> /his constitutiona" o)er of the+resident is se"f e-ecutin$ and does notrequire any im "ementin$ "a). %on$resscannot "imit or curtai" the +resident!s

o)er of contro" over the -ecutivebranch. /he %%+ fa""s under the

-ecutive branch. Since the +residente-ercises contro" over ;a"" the e-ecutivede artments, bureaus, and offices,; the+resident necessari"y e-ercises contro"over the %%+ )hich is an office in the

-ecutive branch. :n mandatin$ that the+resident ;sha"" have contro" of all

e ecutive offices ,; Section 1*,'rtic"e V:: of the 198* %onstitution doesnot e-em t any e-ecutive office one

erformin$ e-ecutive functions outside ofthe inde endent constitutiona" bodies from the +resident!s o)er of contro".

/here is no dis ute that the %%+

erforms e-ecutive, and not "e$is"ative, 6udicia", or quasi 6udicia" functions.

/he Ke$is"ature cannot va"id"y enact a"a) that uts a $overnment office in the

-ecutive branch outside the contro" ofthe +resident in the $uise of insu"atin$that office from o"itics or ma4in$ itinde endent. :f the office is art of the

-ecutive branch, it must remain sub6ectto the contro" of the +residentOther)ise, the Ke$is"ature can de rivethe +resident of his constitutiona" o)erof contro" over ;a"" the e-ecutive - - -offices.; :f the Ke$is"ature can do this)ith the -ecutive branch, then theKe$is"ature can a"so dea" a simi"ar b"o)to the Judicia" branch by enactin$ a "a)

uttin$ decisions of certain "o)er courtsbeyond the revie) o)er of the Su reme%ourt. /his )i"" destroy the system ofchec4s and ba"ances fine"y structured inthe 198* %onstitution amon$ the

-ecutive, Ke$is"ative, and Judiciabranches.

Section EbF and EcF of +C 1>, )hicauthoriDes the trustees of the %%+ (oardto fi"" vacancies in the (oard, runs afou")ith the +resident!s o)er of contro"under Section 1*, 'rtic"e V:: of the 198*%onstitution. /he intent of Section EbFand EcF of +C 1> is to insu"ate the %%from o"itica" inf"uence and ressures ecifica""y from the +resident. ma4es the %%+se"f er etuatin$ entity, virtua""y outsidethe contro" of the +resident. Such a

ub"ic office or board cannot "e$a""y e-istunder the 198* %onstitution.

TITLE : AYTONA VS. CASTILLO
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jul2006/gr_139554_2006.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jul2006/gr_139554_2006.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jul2006/gr_139554_2006.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jul2006/gr_139554_2006.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jul2006/gr_139554_2006.html#fnt35


16/32

CITATION: 43 SCRA 1 G.R. NO. L19313DATE: ANUAR# 19, 196"

FACTS:

On Cecember 9, 19 1, %ar"os +. arcia,)ho )as sti"" +resident that time, made"ast minute a ointments )hi"e the%ommission on ' ointments )as not insession. Said "ast minute a ointmentinc"uded Cominador @. 'ytona, )ho )as

a ointed as ad interim overnor of%entra" (an4. /he "atter too4 oath on thesame day.

' t noon on Cecember 30, 19 1,+resident e"ect Ciosdado Maca a$a"assumed office. 2e issued 'dministrativeOrder =o. on Cecember 31, 19 1reca""in$, )ithdra)in$ and cance"in$ a""ad interim a ointments made by+resident arcia after Cecember 13,19 1, )hich )as the date )henMaca a$a" )as roc"aimed +resident bythe %on$ress. 2e then a ointed 'ndresV. %asti""o as ad interim overnor of the%entra" (an4 and the "atter qua"ified

immediate"y.

On January , 19 , both e-ercised theo)ers of their office. 2o)ever, 'ytona

)as revented from ho"din$ office thefo""o)in$ day and thus instituted a quo)arranto roceedin$, cha""en$in$%asti""o5s ri$ht to e-ercise the o)ers ofthe overnor of the %entra" (an4. 'ytonac"aims that he )as va"id"y a ointed andhad qua"ified for the ost, thereforema4in$ %asti""o5s a ointment void.%asti""o then contended that 'ytona5sa ointment had a"ready been revo4edby 'dministrative Order =o. issued by+resident Maca a$a".

ISSUE:

hether or not 'ytona shou"dremain in his ost7

THE COURTS RULING:

2ad the a ointment of 'ytona beendone in $ood faith then he )ou"d havethe ri$ht to continue office. 2ere, eventhou$h 'ytona is qua"ified to remain inhis ost as he is com etent enou$h, hisa ointment can neverthe"ess berevo4ed by the resident. arcia5sa ointments are hurried maneuvers tosubvert the u comin$ administration andis set to obstruct the o"icies of the ne-t

resident. 's a $enera" ru"e, once aerson is qua"ified his a ointment

shou"d not be revo4ed but in here it maybe since his a ointment )as $roundedon bad faith, immora"ity and im ro riety.:n ub"ic service, it is not on"y "e$a"itythat is considered but a"so 6ustice,fairness and ri$hteousness. =orma""y,)hen the +resident ma4es a ointmentsthe consent of the %ommission on' ointments, he has benefit of theiradvice. hen he ma4es ad interima ointments, he e-ercises a s ecia"

rero$ative and is bound to be rudentto insure a rova" of his se"ection either

revious consu"tation )ith the membersof the %ommission or by thereaftere- "ainin$ to them the reason suchse"ection.

here, ho)ever, as in this case, the%ommission on ' ointments that )i""consider the a ointees is different fromthat e -i st in$ at the t ime of thea ointment and )here the names areto be submitted by successor, )ho maynot )ho""y a rove of the se"ections, the+resident shou"d be doub"y carefu" ine-tendin$ such a ointments. =o), it ishard to be"ieve that in si$nin$ 3>0a ointments in one ni$ht, +resident

arcia e-ercised such ;doub"e care;)hich )as required and e- ected of himand therefore, there seems to be force tothe contention that these a ointmentsfa"" beyond the intent and s irit of theconstitutiona" rovision $rantin$ to the

-ecutive authority to issue ad interima ointments.

#nder the circumstances abovedescribed, )hat )ith the se aration of

o)ers, this %ourt reso"ves that it mustdec"ine to disre$ard the +residentia"'dministrative Order =o. , cance""in$such ;midni$ht; or ;"ast minute;a ointments.

Of course, the %ourt is a)are of manyrecedents to the effect that once an

a ointment has been issued, it cannotbe reconsidered, s ecia""y )here thea ointee has qua"ified. (ut none ofthem refer to mass ad interima ointments Ethree hundred and fiftyF,issued in the "ast hours of an out$oin$%hief -ecutive, in a settin$ simi"ar tothat out"ined herein. On the other hand,the authorities admit of e-ce tiona"circumstances 6ustifyin$ revocation 3 andif any circumstances 6ustify revocation,those described herein shou"d fit thee-ce tion.

:ncidenta""y, it shou"d be stated that theunder"yin$ reason for denyin$ the o)erto revo4e after the a ointee has

qua"ified is the "atter!s equitab"e ri$hts. Iet it is doubtfu" if such equity mi$ht besuccessfu""y set u in the resentsituation, considerin$ the rushconditiona" a ointments, hurriedmaneuvers and other ha enin$sdetractin$ from that de$ree of $oodfaith, mora"ity and ro riety )hich formthe basic foundation of c"aims toequitab"e re"ief. /he a ointees, it mi$htbe ar$ued, )ittin$"y or un)ittin$"ycoo erated )ith the strata$em to beatthe dead"ine, )hatever the resu"tantconsequences to the di$nity andefficiency of the ub"ic service. =eed"essto say, there are instances )herein noton"y strict "e$a"ity, but a"so fairness,

6ustice and ri$hteousness shou"d beta4en into account.

/he %ourt e-ercisin$ its 6ud$ment anddiscretion in the matter dismissed theaction, )ithout costs.

TITLE : JORGE VS. MAYOR

CITATION: 10 SCRA 331 G.R. NO. L"1776DATE: FEBRUAR# "8, 1964

FACTS:

+etition for mandamus and 8uo warfi"ed direct"y in this %ourt to hav

etitioner dec"ared as the so"e "e$a""ya ointed and qua"ified Cirector of

Kands, and to require res ondent to turnover said office to the etitioner as )e""as to desist from ho"din$ himse"f out as;'ctin$ Cirector, (ureau of Kands;.

:t is undis uted that etitioner, =icanor. Jor$e, is a career officia" in the (ureau

of Kands. 2e started )or4in$ there as a Junior %om uter in the course of 38 yearsservice, from &ebruary 1, 19 toOctober 31, 19 0, and attained the

osition of 'ctin$ Cirector, throu$hre$u"ar and successive romotions, inaccordance )ith civi" service ru"es. On

June 1*, 19 1, he )as desi$nated 'ctin$

Cirector of the same (ureau, and onCecember 13, 19 1 )as a ointed by+resident %ar"os arcia ad inCirector. 2e qua"ified by ta4in$ the oathof office on the 3rd Cecember of 19 1.2is a ointment )as on Cecember ,19 1, transmitted to the %ommission on' ointments, and on May 1


17/32

+resident Ciosdado Maca a$a" that theosition of Cirector of Kands )as

considered vacant and that etitioner Jor$e )as designated 'ctin$ Cirector ofKands, effective =ovember 13, 19 .# on "earnin$ that res ondent Mayor, anoutsider, had been desi$nate by the+resident to be 'ctin$ Cirector of Kands

Jor$e rotested Ein a "etter of =ovember1 , 19 F to the Secretary of '$ricu"tureinformin$ the "atter that he )ou"d standon his ri$hts, and issued office circu"ars

c"aimin$ to be the "e$a""y a ointedCirector of Kands. &ina""y, on Se tember, 19 3, he instituted the resentroceedin$s.

/he ans)er of res ondent "eads thatthe ad interim a ointment of etitionerand its confirmation )ere inva"id havin$been du"y revo4ed by +residentMaca a$a" by 'dministrative Order =o. dated Cecember 31, 19 1 that

etitioner vo"untari"y re"inquished hisosition and acce ted his desi$nation as

'ctin$ Cirector, issuin$ ress statementsto said e ffec t, and vo"untari "yaccom anyin$ and introducin$res ondent to meet officia"s of the(ureau as the ne) actin$ Cirector ofKands.

ISSUE:

hether or not 'dministrativeOrder =o. of + res identMaca a$a" o erated as a va"idrevocation of etitioner!s adinterim a ointment7

THE COURTS RULING:

:n common )ith the i""era a ointmentsustained by this %ourt "ess than a montha$o, Jor$e!s a ointment is featured by areco$nition of his tenure by theMaca a$a" administration itse"f, since he)as a""o)ed to ho"d and dischar$eundisturbed his duties as de 6ure Cirectorof Kands for near"y e"even months it )as

on"y in mid =ovember of 19 that theattem t )as actua""y made to demotehim and a oint a ran4 outsider in his

"ace in the erson of res ondent Mayor.

's to the a""e$ed vo"untary acquiescenceand re"inquishment by etitioner of his

osition as de 6ure Cirector of Kands, theevidence is that he did rotect a$ainsthis demotion in "etters to the Secretary of'$ricu"ture and in office circu"ars. /hathe did not immediate"y ado t a hosti"e

attitude to)ards the authorities, and theres ondent herein )as mere"y evidenceof that courtesy and ;de"icadeDa; to bee- ected of a man in a hi$h osition )hodoes not )ish to obstruct the functions ofthe office, and is in no )ay incom atib"e)ith his determination to rotect hisri$ht. :t must a"so be remembered thatthe recedent! case of the former%hairman of the =ationa" Science (oard,sus ended indefinite"y on char$es that)ere subsequent"y found to be fa"se, didnot encoura$e reci itate action, and)as a reminder of the un "easantconsequences of def yin$ theadministration. 't any rate,

;abandonment of an office by reason ofacce tance of another, in order to beeffective and bindin$, shou"d s rin$ fromand be accom anied by de"iberation andfreedom of choice, either to 4ee the o"doffice or renounce it for another; E/evesvs. Sindion$ 81 +hi". >8F, and the recordis unconvincin$ that the a""e$ed acts ofacquiescence, most"y equivoca" incharacter, )ere free"y and vo"untari"yaccom "ished.

/he )rits a "ied for )ere $ranted, theetitioner =icanor . Jor$e is dec"ared to

be the du"y a ointed, confirmed, andqua"ified Cirector of Kands, theres ondent, Jovencio H. Mayor, )asrequired to turn over said office to the

etitioner and to desist from ho"din$ se"fout as ;'ctin$ Cirector of Kands;

TITLE : DE CASTRO VS. JBC

CITATION: G.R. NO. 19100"DATE: MARCH 17, "010

FACTS:

/he com u"sory retirement of %hief Justice @eynato S. +uno by May 1*, 010occurs 6ust days after the comin$

residentia" e"ections on May 10, 010.

/hese cases trace their $enesis to thecontroversy that has arisen from theforthcomin$ com u"sory retirement of%hief Justice +uno on May 1*, 010, orseven days after the residentia"e"ection. #nder Section , 010, res ective"y /he OS contends that the incumbent

+resident may a oint the ne-t %hief Justice, because the rohibition underSection 1>, 'rtic"e V:: of the %onstitutiondoes not a "y to a ointments in theSu reme %ourt. :t ar$ues that anyvacancy in the Su reme %ourt must befi""ed )ithin 90 days from its occurrence,

ursuant to Section


18/32

the +resident to a oint one from theshort "ist to fi"" the vacancy in theSu reme %ourt Ebe it the %hief Justice oran 'ssociate JusticeF )ithin 90 days fromthe occurrence of the vacancy.

ISSUE:

hether or not the incumbent+resident can a oint thesuccessor of %hief Justice +unou on his retirement7

THE COURTS RULING:

+rohibition under Section 1>, 'rtic"e V::does not a "y to a ointments to fi"" avacancy in the Su reme %ourt or to othera ointments to the Judiciary. /)oconstitutiona" rovisions are seemin$"y inconf"ict.

/he first, S%&'()* 1!, A+'(& % VIIE -ecutive Ce artmentF, rovidesGSection 1>. /)o months immediate"ybefore the ne-t residentia" e"ections andu to the end of his term, a +resident or'ct in$ +resident sha"" not ma4ea ointments, e-ce t tem orarya ointments to e-ecutive ositions)hen continued vacancies therein )i""

re6udice ub"ic service or endan$erub"ic safety.

/he other, S%&'()* 4 21 , A+'(& % VIIIEJudicia" Ce artmentF, statesG Section ,

' rt ic"e V:: to the a ointment ofMembers of the Su reme %ourt, theycou"d have e- "icit"y done so. /hey cou"d

not have i$nored the meticu"ous orderin$of the rovisions. /hey )ou"d have easi"yand sure"y )ritten the rohibition madee- "icit in Section 1>, 'rtic"e V:: as bein$equa""y a "icab"e to the a ointment ofMembers of the Su reme %ourt in 'rtic"eV::: itse"f, most "i4e"y in Section < E1F,'rtic"e V:::. /hat such s ecification )asnot done on"y revea"s that the rohibitiona$ainst the +resident or 'ctin$ +residentma4in$ a ointments )ithin t)o monthsbefore the ne-t residentia" e"ections and

u to the end of the +resident5s or 'ctin$+resident5s term does not refer to theMembers of the Su reme %ourt.

2ad the framers intended to e-tend therohibition contained in Section 1>,

' rt ic"e V:: to the a ointment ofMembers of the Su reme %ourt, theycou"d have e- "icit"y done so. /hey cou"dnot have i$nored the meticu"ous orderin$of the rovisions. /hey )ou"d have easi"yand sure"y )ritten the rohibition madee- "icit in Section 1>, 'rtic"e V:: as bein$equa""y a "icab"e to the a ointment ofMembers of the Su reme %ourt in 'rtic"eV::: itse"f, most "i4e"y in Section < E1F,'rtic"e V:::. /hat such s ecification )asnot done on"y revea"s that the rohibitiona$ainst the +resident or 'ctin$ +residentma4in$ a ointments )ithin t)o monthsbefore the ne-t residentia" e"ections andu to the end of the +resident5s or 'ctin$+resident5s term does not refer to theMembers of the Su reme %ourt.

Section 1, and Section 1are obvious"y of the same character, inthat they affect the o)er of the+resident to a oint. /he fact thatSection 1< and Section 1 refer on"y toa ointments )ithin the -ecutive

Ce artment renders conc"usive thatSection 1> a"so a "ies on"y to the

-ecutive Ce artment. /his conc"usion isconsistent )ith the ru"e that every art ofthe statute must be inter reted )ithreference to the conte-t, i.e. that every

art must be considered to$ether )ith

the other arts, and 4e t subservient tothe $enera" intent of the )ho"eenactment. :t is absurd to assume thatthe framers de"iberate"y situated Section1> bet)een Section 1< and Section 1 , ifthey intended Section 1> to cover a""4inds of residentia" a ointments. :fthat )as their intention in res ect ofa ointments to the Judiciary, theframers, if on"y to be c"ear, )ou"d haveeasi"y and sure"y inserted a simi"ar

rohibition in 'rtic"e V:::, most "i4e"y

)ithin Section < E1F thereof.

TITLE : GUEVARA VS. INOCENTES

CITATION: 16 SCRA 38 G.R. NO. L"!!77DATE: MARCH 1!, 1966

FACTS:

/he etitioner, Onofre uevara )ase-tended an ad interim a ointment as#ndersecretary of Kabor by the former

-ecutive on =ovember 18, 19 >. /oo4his oath of office on =ovember > th same

year. /he incumbent -ecutive issuedMemorandum %ircu"ar =o. 8 dated January 3, 19 dec"arin$ that a"" adinterim a ointments made by theformer -ecutive "a sed )ith thead6ournment of the s ecia" session of%on$ress at about midni$ht of January

, 19 . /he res ondent, @aou":nocentes )as e-tended an ad interima ointment for the same osition by theincumbent -ecutive on January 3,19 . uevara fi"ed before the court aninstant etition for Huo arranto see4in$to be dec"ared erson "e$a""y entit"ed tothe said Officer of the #ndersecretary ofKabor under 'rt. V:: Sec. 10 E %onstitution )hich states that /he president shall have the power to ma)eappointments during the recess of theCongress' but such appointments shallbe effective only until disapproval by theCommission on ppointments or until thene t ad9ournment of Congress.

Since there )as no %ommission on' ointments or$aniDed durin$ thes ecia" session )hich commenced on

January 1*, 19 , the res ondentcontended that the etitioner5s adinterim a ointment as )e"" as othermade under simi"ar conditions must have"a sed )hen the %on$ress ad6ourned its"ast s ecia" session. (ut the etitionerstated that E1F the s ecific rovision inthe %onstitution )hich states thatG Aunti"the ne-t ad6ournment of %on$ressB

means ad6ournment of a re$u"ar sessionof %on$ress and not by a s ecia" sessionand E F on"y the Senate ad6ourned sinedie at midni$ht of January , 19 andthe 2ouse of the @e resentative mere"yTsus ended5 its session and to beresumed on January


19/32

%onstitution used the )ordAad6ournmentB had in mind either re$u"aror s ecia" and not sim "y the re$u"ar oneas the etitioner contended.

/he mere fact that the Senate ad6ournedsine die at midni$ht of January , 19 ,the 2ouse of the @e resentative is on"y a

art of the %on$ress and not the%on$ress itse"f. So "o$ica""y, thead6ournment of one of its 2ouses isconsidered ad6ournment of the %on$ress

as a )ho"e. 'nd the etitioner5s adinterim a ointment must have been"a sed on January , 19 u onad6ournment of the Senate.

:t is ho ed that no) and hereafter suche-cess in the e-ercise of o)er shou"dbe obviated to avoid confusion,uncertainty, embarrassment and chaos)hich may cause disru tion in thenorma" function of $overnment to the

re6udice of ub"ic interest. :t is time thatsuch e-cess be sto ed in the interest ofthe ub"ic )ea".

herefore, etition )as denied

TITLE : MATIBAG VS. BENIPAYO

CITATION: G.R. NO. 149036DATE: A$RIL ", "00"

FACTS:

+resident M' a ointed, ad interim,(eni ayo as %OM K % %hairman,3 and(orra< and /uason> as %OM K %%ommissioners, each for a term of sevenyears and a"" e- irin$ on &ebruary ,

008. /hey a"" too4 their oath of officeand assumed the ositions. /he Office ofthe +resident submitted to the%ommission on ' ointments the adinterim a ointments of (eni ayo, (orraand /uason for confirmation. 2o)ever,the %ommission on ' ointments did notact on said a ointments.

+resident 'rroyo rene)ed the ad interima ointments of (eni ayo, (orra and

/uason to the same ositions and for thesame term of seven years. /hey too4their oaths of office for a second time.

/he Office of the +resident transmittedtheir a ointments to the %ommission on' ointments for confirmation. %on$ressad6ourned before the %ommission on' ointments cou"d act on theira ointments.

:n his ca acity as %ome"ec %hair,(eni ayo issued a Memorandum,reassi$nin$ Matiba$ to the from the

ducation Ce artment to the Ka)Ce artment. Matiba$ sou$htreconsideration, ar$uin$ that transferand detai" of em "oyees are rohibiteddurin$ the e"ection eriod, both by the

"ection %ode and a %ivi" ServiceMemorandum. Matiba$ fi"ed anadministrative and crimina" case a$ainst(eni ayo. Matiba$ a"so questioned thea ointment and the ri$ht to remain inoffice of (eni ayo, (orra and /uason, as%hairman and %ommissioners of the%OM K %, res ective"y. +etitioner c"aims

that the ad interim a ointments of(eni ayo, (orra and /uason vio"ate theconstitut iona" rovisions on theinde endence of the %OM K %, as )e""as on the rohibitions on tem orarya ointments and rea ointments of its%hairman and members.

+etitioner osits the vie) that an adinterim a ointment can be )ithdra)n orrevo4ed by the +resident at her "easure,and can even be disa roved or sim "yby assed by the %ommission on' ointments. &or this reason, etitionerc"aims that an ad interim a ointment istem orary in character and consequent"y

rohibited by the "ast sentence of Section1 E F, 'rtic"e :L % of the %onstitution. /herationa"e behind etitioner5s theory isthat on"y an a ointee )ho is confirmedby the %ommission on ' ointments can$uarantee the inde endence of the%OM K %. ' confirmed a ointee is

beyond the inf"uence of the +resident ormembers of the %ommission on' ointments since his a ointment canno "on$er be reca""ed or disa roved.+rior to his confirmation, the a ointee isat the mercy of both the a ointin$ andconfirmin$ o)ers since his a ointmentcan be terminated at any time for anycause.

+etitioner a"so a$ues that assumin$ thefirst ad interim a ointments and thefirst assum tion of office by (eni ayo,(orra and /uason are constitutiona", therene)a" o f the the ir ad interima ointments and their subsequentassum tion of office to the same

ositions vio"ate the rohibition onrea ointment under Section 1 E F,'rtic"e :L % of the %onstitution.

+etitioner theoriDes that once an adinterim a ointee is by assed by the%ommission on ' ointments, his adinterim a ointment can no "on$er berene)ed because this )i"" vio"ate Section

1 E F, 'rtic"e :L % of the %onstitution)hich rohibits rea ointments.+etitioner asserts that this is articu"ar"ytrue to ermanent a ointees )ho haveassumed office, )hich is the situation of(eni ayo, (orra and /uason if their adinterim a ointments are deemed

ermanent in character .

ISSUES:

U hether or not theassum tion of office by(eni ayo, (orra and /uasonon the basis of the ad interima ointments issued by the+resident amounts to atem orary a ointment

rohibited by Section 1 E F,'rtic"e :L % of the%onstitution7

U hether or not trene)a" of their ad interima ointments subsequent assum tion ooffice to the same ositionvio"ate the rohibition rea ointment under Section1 E F, 'rtic"e :L % of%onstitution7

THE COURTS RULING:

' n ad inter im a o intment i s aermanent a ointment because it ta4es

effect immediate"y and can no "on$er be)ithdra)n by the +resident once thea ointee has qua"ified into office. /hefact that it is sub6ect to confirmation bythe %ommission on ' ointments doesnot a"ter its ermanent character. /he%onstitution itse"f ma4es an ad interima ointment ermanent in character byma4in$ it effective unti" disa roved bythe %ommission on ' ointments or unti"the ne-t ad6ournment of %on$ress. /hus,the ad interim a ointment remainseffective unti" such disa rova" or ne-tad6ournment, si$nifyin$ that it can no

"on$er be )ithdra)n or revo4ed by the+resident. /he fear that the +resident can)ithdra) or revo4e at any time and forany reason an ad interim a ointment isutter"y )ithout basis.

'n ad interim a ointment that is byassed because of "ac4 of time or fai"ure

of the %ommission on ' ointments toor$aniDe is another matter. ' by asseda ointment is one that has not beenfina""y acted u on on the merits by the%ommission on ' ointments at thec"ose of the session of %on$ress. /here isno fina" decision by the %ommission on' ointments to $ive or )ithho"d itsconsent to the a ointment as requiredby the %onstitution. 'bsent suchdecision, the +resident is free to rene)the ad interim a ointment of a by

assed a ointee. /hus, a by asseda ointment can be considered a$ain ifthe +resident rene)s the a ointment.


20/32

:n short, an ad interim a ointmentceases to be effective u on disa rova"by the %ommission, because theincumbent can not continue ho"din$office over the ositive ob6ection of the%ommission. :t ceases, a"so, u on ;thene-t ad6ournment of the %on$ress;,sim "y because the +resident may thenissue ne) a ointments not because ofim "ied disa rova" of the %ommissiondeduced from its inaction durin$ thesession of %on$ress, for, under the

%onstitution, the %ommission may affectadverse"y the interim a ointments on"yby action, never by omission. :f thead6ournment of %on$ress )ere anim "ied disa rova" of ad interima ointments made rior thereto, thenthe +resident cou"d no "on$er a ointthose so by assed by the %ommission.(ut, the fact is that the +resident mayrea oint them, thus c"ear"y indicatin$that the reason for said termination ofthe ad interim a ointments is not thedisa rova" thereof a""e$ed"y inferredfrom said omission of the %ommission,but the circumstance that u on saidad6ournment of the %on$ress, the

+resident is free to ma4e ad interima ointments or rea ointments.;

/he rohibition on rea ointment inSection 1 E F, ' rt ic"e :L % of the%onstitut ion a "ies neither todisa roved nor by assed ad interima ointments. ' disa roved ad interima ointment cannot be revived byanother ad interim a ointment becausethe disa rova" is fina" under Section 1 ,'rtic"e V:: of the %onstitution, and notbecause a rea ointment is rohibitedunder Section 1 E F, 'rtic"e :L % of the%onstitution. ' by assed ad interima ointment can be revived by a ne) adinterim a ointment because there is nofina" disa rova" under Section 1 ,'rtic"e V:: of the %onstitution, and suchne) a ointment )i"" not resu"t in thea ointee servin$ beyond the fi-ed termof seven years.

Section 1 E F, ' rt ic"e :L % of the%onstitution rovides that ;Nt he%hairman and the %ommissioners sha""be a ointed for a term of seven years)ithout rea ointment.; E m hasissu "iedF /here are four situations )herethis rovision )i"" a "y. /he firstsituation is )here an ad interima ointee to the %OM K %, afterconfirmation by the %ommission on' ointments, serves his fu"" seven yearterm. Such erson cannot be rea ointed

to the %OM K %, )hether as a memberor as a chairman, because he )i"" then beactua""y servin$ more than seven years.

/he second situation is )here thea ointee, after confirmation, serves a

art of his term and then resi$ns beforehis seven year term of office ends. Such

erson cannot be rea ointed, )hetheras a member or as a chair, to a vacancyarisin$ from retirement because area ointment ) i"" resu"t in thea ointee a"so servin$ more than sevenyears. /he third situation is )here thea ointee is confirmed to serve theune- ired term of someone )ho died orresi$ned, and the a ointee com "etes

the une- ired term. Such erson cannotbe rea ointed, )hether as a member orchair, to a va

Case Digests 7

Documents

Transcript of Case Digests 7