October 2011 Supreme Court Decisions on PoliticalLaw.doc

8/14/2019 October 2011 Supreme Court Decisions on PoliticalLaw.doc

1/9

October 2011 Supreme Court Decisions on Political LawNovember 14, 2011Vicente D. Gerochi IV

Here are selected October 2011 rulings o the !u"reme #ourt o the $hili""ines on "olitical la%&

Constitutional Law

#onstitutionalit' o () 101*+. (e"ublic )ct 101*+ reset the )( elections rom )ugust -,

2011, to the second onda' o a' 201+ and ever' three 'ears thereater, to coincide %iththe countr's regular national and local elections. /he la% also granted the $resident the"o%er to a""oint oicers in charge or the Oice o the )( (egional Governor, the

(egional ViceGovernor, and the embers o the (egional egislative )ssembl', %ho %illhold said oices until the oicials dul' elected in the a' 201+ elections shall have ualiied

and assumed oice. In addressing the constitutionalit' o this la%, the #ourt discussed theollo%ing issues&

Does the Constitution mandate the synchronization of elections? 3es. hile the #onstitutiondoes not e5"ressl' state that #ongress has to s'nchroni6e national and local elections, the

clear intent to%ards this ob7ective can be gleaned rom the /ransitor' $rovisions 8)rticle9VIII: o the #onstitution, %hich sho% the e5tent to %hich the #onstitutional #ommission,

b' deliberatel' ma;ing ad7ustments to the terms o the incumbent oicials, sought to attains'nchroni6ation o elections. /he ob7ective behind setting a common termination date or

all elective oicials, done among others through the shortening the terms o the t%elve%inning senators %ith the least number o votes, is to s'nchroni6e the holding o all uture

elections < %hether national or local < to once ever' three 'ears. /his intention inds ullsu""ort in the discussions during the #onstitutional #ommission deliberations. /hese

#onstitutional #ommission e5changes, read %ith the "rovisions o the /ransitor' $rovisions

o the #onstitution, all serve as "atent indicators o the constitutional mandate to holds'nchroni6ed national and local elections, starting the second onda' o a', 1==2 and or

all the ollo%ing elections. )lthough called regional elections, the )( elections should be

included among the elections to be s'nchroni6ed as it is a >local? election based on the%ording and structure o the #onstitution.

Does the passage of RA 10153 violate Section !"#$ Article %& of the Constitution? No./hat section "rovides that beore a bill "assed b' either the House or the !enate can

become la%, it must "ass through three readings on se"arate da's. /he e5ce"tion is %henthe $resident certiies to the necessit' o the bills immediate enactment. In this case, the

records sho% that the $resident %rote to the !"ea;er o the House o (e"resentatives tocerti' the necessit' o the immediate enactment o a la% s'nchroni6ing the )( elections

%ith the national and local elections. @ollo%ing 'olentino v( Secretary of )inance, the$residents certiication e5em"ted both the House and the !enate rom having to com"l'

%ith the three se"arate readings reuirement.Does the re*uirement of a superma+ority vote for amendments or revisions to RA ,05-violate Section 1 and Section 1!"#$ Article %& of the Constitution and the corollary doctrineon irrepeala.le la/s? 3es. Aven assuming that () =+++ and () 101*+ did in act amend() =0*4 8the #ourt ruled in this case that those t%o la%s did not amend () =0*4:, thesu"erma7orit' 82B+: voting reuirement reuired under !ection 1, )rticle 9VII o () =0*4

has to be struc; do%n or giving that la% the character o an irre"ealable la% b' reuiringmore than %hat the #onstitution demands. () =0*4 is the !econd Organic )ct o the

)(, %hich "rovided that the irst )( elections %ould be held on the second onda' o!e"tember 2001. () =+++ is one o several la%s "rior to () 101*+ that reset the date o

the )( regional elections. !ection 1C82:, )rticle VI o the #onstitution "rovides that a>ma7orit' o each House shall constitute a uorum to do business.? )s long as ma7orit' o

the members o the House o (e"resentatives or the !enate are "resent, these bodies havethe uorum needed to conduct business and hold session. ithin a uorum, a vote o

ma7orit' is generall' suicient to enact la%s or a""rove acts. In contrast, !ection 1, )rticle

9VII o () =0*4 reuires a vote o no less than 2B+ o the embers o the House o
http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/author/vdglexoterica/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/author/vdglexoterica/


2/9

(e"resentatives and o the !enate, voting se"aratel', in order to amend that la%. #learl',this 2B+ voting reuirement is higher than %hat the #onstitution reuires or the "assage o

bills, and served to restrain the "lenar' "o%ers o #ongress to amend, revise or re"eal thela%s it had "assed. hile a su"erma7orit' is not a total ban against a re"eal, it is a

limitation in e5cess o %hat the #onstitution reuires on the "assage o bills and isconstitutionall' obno5ious because it signiicantl' constricts the uture legislators room or

action and le5ibilit'.Does the re*uirement of a ple.iscite apply only to the creation of autonomous regionsunder paragraph $ Section 1$ Article of the Constitution? 3es. () =0*4 enlarged the"lebiscite reuirement in the #onstitution %ith res"ect to the )(. /his enlargement

violates !ection 1-, )rticle 9 o the #onstitution. !ection 1- states that a "lebiscite isreuired onl' or the creation o autonomous regions and or determining %hich "rovinces,

cities and geogra"hic areas %ill be included in the autonomous regions. /his means thatonl' amendments to, or revisions o, the Organic )ct constitutionall'essential to the

creation oautonomous regions < i(e., those as"ects s"eciicall' mentioned in the#onstitution %hich #ongress must "rovide or in the Organic )ct < reuire ratiication

through a "lebiscite. /hese amendments to the Organic )ct are those that relate to& 8a: thebasic structure o the regional government 8b: the regions 7udicial s'stem,i(e(, the s"ecialcourts %ith "ersonal, amil', and "ro"ert' la% 7urisdiction and, 8c: the grant and e5tent o

the legislative "o%ers constitutionall' conceded to the regional government under !ection20, )rticle 9 o the #onstitution. /he date o the )( elections does not all under an' othe matters that the #onstitution s"eciicall' mandated #ongress to "rovide or in the

Organic )ct. /hereore, an' change in the date o elections cannot be construed as asubstantial amendment o the Organic )ct that %ould reuire com"liance %ith the "lebiscite

reuirement.Does RA 10153 violate the autonomy granted to the AR22? No. $etitioners argued that%hile s'nchroni6ation ma' be constitutionall' mandated, it cannot be used to deeat or toim"ede the autonom' that the #onstitution granted to the )(. $hrased in this manner,

one %ould "resume that there e5ists a conlict bet%een t%o recogni6ed #onstitutionalmandates < s'nchroni6ation and regional autonom' < such that it is necessar' to choose

one over the other. /he #ourt ound this to be an erroneous a""roach that violates a basic

"rinci"le in constitutional construction that the #onstitution is to be inter"reted as a %hole,and one mandate should not be given im"ortance over the other e5ce"t %here the "rimac'

o one over the other is clear. !'nchroni6ation is an interest that is as constitutionall'entrenched as regional autonom'. /he' are interests that the #ourt should reconcile and

give eect to, in the %a' that #ongress did in () 101*+, %hich "rovides the measure totransit to s'nchroni6ed regional elections %ith the least disturbance on the interests that

must be res"ected. $articularl', regional autonom' %ill be res"ected instead o being

sidelined, as the la% does not in an' %a' alter, change or modi' its governing eatures,e5ce"t in a ver' tem"orar' manner and onl' as necessitated b' the attendant

circumstances. @urther, %hile autonomous regions are granted "olitical autonom', theramers o the #onstitution never euated autonom' %ith inde"endence. /he )( as a

regional entit' thus continues to o"erate %ithin the larger rame%or; o the !tate and is stillsub7ect to the national "olicies set b' the national government, save onl' or those s"eciic

areas reserved b' the #onstitution or regional autonomous determination. /he autonom'granted to the )( cannot be invo;ed to deeat national "olicies and concerns. !ince the

s'nchroni6ation o elections is not 7ust a regional concern but a national one, the )( issub7ect to it the regional autonom' granted to the )( cannot be used to e5em"t the

region rom having to act in accordance %ith a national "olic' mandated b' no less than the#onstitution.

iven the constitutional o.+ective of synchronization$ did Congress gravely a.use itsdiscretion or violate the Constitution /hen it addressed through RA 10153 the concomitantpro.lems that the ad+ustment of elections necessarily .rought /ith it? No. /he #ourt here


3/9

identiied the ollo%ing o"tions o"en to #ongress in order to resolve the "roblems& 81: allo%the elective oicials in the )( to remain in oice in a hold over ca"acit' until those

elected in the s'nchroni6ed elections assume oice 82: hold s"ecial elections in the )(,%ith the terms o those elected to e5"ire %hen those elected in the s'nchroni6ed elections

assume oice or 8+: authori6e the $resident to a""oint oicers in charge, "ursuant to!ection + o () 101*+, until those elected in the s'nchroni6ed elections assume oice. /he

#ourt held that in choosing to grant the $resident the "o%er to a""oint OI#s, #ongresschose the correct o"tion and "assed () 101*+ as a valid la%.Holdover option is unconstitutional. /his o"tion violates !ection -, )rticle 9 o the

#onstitution, %hich states that the term o oice o elective local oicials, e5ce"t baranga'

oicials, %hich shall be determined b' la%, shall be three 'ears and no such oicial shallserve or more than three consecutive terms. !ince elective )( oicials are local

oicials, the' are covered and bound b' the three'ear term limit "rescribed b' the#onstitution #ongress cannot e5tend their term through a la% allo%ing oicials to serve in

a holdover ca"acit'. I it %ill be claimed that the holdover "eriod is eectivel' another termmandated b' #ongress, the net result is or #ongress to create a ne% term and to a""oint

the occu"ant or the ne% term. /his vie% < li;e the e5tension o the elective term < isconstitutionall' inirm because #ongress cannot do indirectl' %hat it cannot do directl', i(e(,to act in a %a' that %ould eectivel' e5tend the term o the incumbents. #ongress cannot

also create a ne% term and eectivel' a""oint the occu"ant o the "osition or the ne%term. /his is eectivel' an act o a""ointment b' #ongress and an unconstitutional intrusioninto the constitutional a""ointment "o%er o the $resident.

COMELEC has no authorit to order special elections! )nother o"tion "ro"osed b' the"etitioner is or this #ourt to com"el #OAA# to immediatel' conduct s"ecial elections

"ursuant to !ection * and C o4atas am.ansa 4ilang--1. /he "o%er to i5 the date oelections is essentiall' legislative in nature. #ongress has acted on the )( elections b'

"ost"oning the scheduled )ugust 2011 elections and setting another date < a' 1+, 2011 elective and re"resentative o the constituent "olitical

units.? /his reuirement indeed is an e5"ress limitation %hose nonobservance in the

assailed la% leaves the a""ointment o OI#s constitutionall' deective. Eut the #ourt saidthis alleged constitutional "roblem is more a""arent than real and becomes ver' real onl' i() 101*+ %ere to be mista;enl' read as a la% that changes the elective and re"resentative

character o )( "ositions. () 101*+, ho%ever, does not in an' %a' amend %hat theorganic la% o the )( sets outs in terms o structure o governance. hat () 101*+ in

act onl' does is to 7appoint officers8in8charge for the 6ffice of the Regional overnor$Regional %ice overnor and 2em.ers of the Regional 9egislative Assem.ly /ho shallperform the functions pertaining to the said offices until the officials duly elected in the 2ay013 elections shall have *ualified and assumed office(: /his "o%er is ar dierent roma""ointing elective )( oicials or the abbreviated term ending on the assum"tion tooice o the oicials elected in the a' 201+ elections.

Given the "lain unconstitutionalit' o "roviding or a holdover and the unavailabilit' o

constitutional "ossibilities or lengthening or shortening the term o the elected )(oicials, is the choice o the $residents "o%er to a""oint < or a i5ed and s"eciic "eriod as

an interim measure, and as allo%ed under !ection 1C, )rticle VII o the #onstitution < anunconstitutional or unreasonable choice or #ongress to ma;e )dmittedl', the grant o the

"o%er to the $resident under other situations or %here the "o%er o a""ointment %oulde5tend be'ond the ad7ustment "eriod or s'nchroni6ation %ould be to oster a government

that is not >democratic and re"ublican.? @or then, the "eo"les right to choose the leaders to

govern them ma' be said to be s'stemicall' %ithdra%n to the "oint o ostering anundemocratic regime. /his is the grant that %ould rontall' breach the >elective and

re"resentative? governance reuirement o !ection 1-, )rticle 9 o the #onstitution. Eutthis conclusion %ould not be true under the ver' limited circumstances contem"lated in ()

101*+ %here the "eriod is i5ed and, more im"ortant, the terms o governance < both under!ection 1-, )rticle 9 o the #onstitution and () =0*4 < %ill not s'stemicall' be touched nor

aected at all. () =0*4 %ill govern unchanged and continuousl', %ith ull eect inaccordance %ith the #onstitution, save onl' or the interim and tem"orar' measures that

s'nchroni6ation o elections reuires.Vie%ed rom another "ers"ective, s'nchroni6ation %ill tem"oraril' disru"t the election

"rocess in a local communit', the )(, as %ell as the communit's choice o leaders, butthis %ill ta;e "lace under a situation o necessit' and as an interim measure in the manner

that interim measures have been ado"ted and used in the creation o local governmentunits and the ad7ustments o sub"rovinces to the status o "rovinces. /hese measures,

too, are used in light o the %ider national demand or the s'nchroni6ation o elections


5/9

8considered vis8;8visthe regional interests involved:. /he ado"tion o these measures, inother %ords, is no dierent rom the e5ercise b' #ongress o the inherent "olice "o%er o

the !tate, %here one o the essential tests is the reasonableness o the interim measureta;en in light o the given circumstances.

@urthermore, the >re"resentative? character o the chosen leaders need not necessaril' beaected b' the a""ointment o OI#s as this reuirement is reall' a unction o the

a""ointment "rocess onl' the >elective? as"ect shall be su""lanted b' the a""ointment oOI#s. In this regard, () 101*+ signiicantl' see;s to address concerns arising rom thea""ointments b' "roviding, under !ections +, 4 and * o the assailed la%, concrete terms in

the )""ointment o OI#, the anner and $rocedure o )""ointing OI#s, and their

ualiications. Datu 2ichael A.as to 4rillantes$ etc($ et al(=Rep( dcel C( 9agman vs( a*uito @(6choa$ r($ etc($ et al(=Almarin Centi 'illah$ et al( vs( 'he Commission on lections$ etc($ etal(=Atty( Romulo 4( 2acalintal vs( Commission on lections$ et al(=9uis 74aroB: 4iraogo vs('he Commission on lections$ et al(=acinto %( aras vs( >ecutive Secretary$ et al($ (R(@o( 1,!1=(R( @o( 1,!305=(R( @o( 1,1=(R( @o( 1,0=(R( @o( 1,=(R( @o(1,3,=(R( @o( 1,-5-( 6cto.er 1$ 011.Ombudsman "o%er to grant immunit' . In this case, "etitioner argues that b' e5cluding

the res"ondents in the inormation, the Ombudsman is engaged in >selective "rosecution?

%hich is a clear case o grave abuse o discretion. He claims that beore the Ombudsmanma' avail o the res"ondents as state %itnesses, the' must be included irst in theinormation iled %ith the court. /hereater, the Ombudsman can as; the court or their

discharge so that the' can be used as state %itnesses under the conditions laid do%n in!ection 1, (ule 11= o the (ules o #ourt. /he !u"reme #ourt held "etitioners claim to be

erroneous. /he Ombudsman has the "o%er to grant immunit' b' itsel and even "rior tothe iling o inormation in court. () No. C0 ull' recogni6es this "rosecutor' "rerogative

b' em"o%ering the Ombudsman to grant immunit', sub7ect to >such terms and conditions?as he ma' determine. /he onl' te5tual limitation im"osed b' la% on this authorit' is the

need to ta;e >into account the "ertinent "rovisions o the (ules o #ourt,? < i.e., !ection 1,(ule 11= o the (ules o #ourt. /he rule under () No. C0 clariies that in cases alread'

iled %ith the courts, the "rosecution merel' ma;es a "ro"osal and initiates the "rocess o

granting immunit' to an accused%itness in order to use him as a %itness against his coaccused. I there is an' distinction at all bet%een the "ublic "rosecutor and the

Ombudsman in this endeavor, it is in the s"eciicit' o and the higher "riorit' given b' la%to the Ombudsmans "ur"ose and ob7ective. /his accounts or the Ombudsmans uniue

"o%er to grant immunit' b' itsel and even "rior to the iling o inormation in court, a"o%er that the "ublic "rosecutor himsel generall' does not en7o'. /hus, there %as no

grave abuse o discretion in this case. rdito uarto vs( 'he Eon( 6m.udsman Simeon2arcelo$ et al($ (R( @o( 1!,0-( 6cto.er 5$ 011($olice "o%er 6oning. #ongress e5"ressl' granted the cit' government, through the cit'

council, "olice "o%er b' virtue o !ection 128oo: o (e"ublic )ct No. *+, or the (evised#harter o ue6on #it'. ith regard to the "o%er o local government units to issue 6oning

ordinances, 7uris"rudence has recogni6ed that the government ma' enact legislation thatma' interere %ith "ersonal libert', "ro"ert', la%ul businesses and occu"ations to "romote

the general %elare. Ho%ever, the intererence must be reasonable and not arbitrar'.Eased on the oregoing, the "o%er to establish 6ones or industrial, commercial and

residential uses is derived rom the "olice "o%er itsel and is e5ercised or the "rotectionand beneit o the residents o a localit'. In this case, it is clear that the "rimar' ob7ectives

o the cit' council o ue6on #it' %hen it issued the uestioned ordinance ordering theconstruction o arcades %ere the health and saet' o the cit' and its inhabitants the

"romotion o their "ros"erit' and the im"rovement o their morals, "eace, good order,comort, and the convenience. /hese arcades "rovide sae and convenient "assage along

the side%al; or commuters and "edestrians, not 7ust the residents o ue6on #it'. ore
https://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/196271.htmhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/196271.htmhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/196271.htmhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/169042.htmhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/196271.htmhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/196271.htmhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/196271.htmhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/169042.htm


6/9

es"eciall' so because the contested "ortion o the building is located on a bus' segment othe cit', in a business 6one along AD!). #onseuentl', the enactment o the ordinance in

this case is %ithin the "o%er o the Sangguniang anlungsodo ue6on #it' and an'resulting burden on those aected cannot be said to be un7ust. milio ancayco vs( Citoovernment of uezon City and 2etro 2anila Development Authority=2etro 2anilaDevelopment Authority vs( ustice milio A( ancayco "Retired#$ (R( @o( 10=(R( @o(

1,33( 6cto.er 11$ 011((ight to "rivac' unreasonable search and sei6ure. /his case involves a search o oicecom"uter assigned to a government em"lo'ee %ho %as charged administrativel' and

eventuall' dismissed rom the service. /he em"lo'ees "ersonal iles stored in the com"uter

%ere used b' the government em"lo'er as evidence o misconduct. $etitioner uestions thelegalit' o the search conducted on his oice com"uter and the co"'ing o his "ersonal iles

%ithout his ;no%ledge and consent. He said this search violated his constitutional right to"rivac'. /he right to "rivac' is a acet o the right "rotected b' the guarantee against

unreasonable search and sei6ure under !ection 2, )rticle III o the 1=- #onstitution.(el'ing on J! 7uris"rudence, the #ourt noted that the e5istence o "rivac' right involves a

t%oold reuirement& irst, that a "erson has e5hibited an actual 8sub7ective: e5"ectation o"rivac' and second, that the e5"ectation be one that societ' is "re"ared to recogni6e as

reasonable 8ob7ective:. Once the right is established, the ne5t inuir' is %hether the search

alleged to have violated such right %as reasonable. /his "roceeds rom the "rinci"le thatthe constitutional guarantee under !ection 2, )rticle III, is not a "rohibition o all searchesand sei6ures but onl' o unreasonable searches and sei6ures.

In the case o searches conducted b' a "ublic em"lo'er, the court needs to balance theinvasion o the em"lo'ees legitimate e5"ectations o "rivac' against the governments need

or su"ervision, control, and the eicient o"eration o the %or;"lace. ) "ublic em"lo'ersintrusions on the constitutionall' "rotected "rivac' interests o government em"lo'ees or

noninvestigator', %or;related "ur"oses, as %ell as or investigations o %or;relatedmisconduct, should be 7udged b' the standard o reasonableness under all the

circumstances. Jnder this reasonableness standard, both the ince"tion and the sco"e o theintrusion must be reasonable. Ordinaril', a search o an em"lo'ees oice b' a su"ervisor

%ill be >7ustiied at its ince"tion? %hen there are reasonable grounds or sus"ecting that the

search %ill turn u" evidence that the em"lo'ee is guilt' o %or;related misconduct, or thatthe search is necessar' or a noninvestigator' %or;related "ur"ose. /he search %ill be

"ermissible in its sco"e %hen the measures ado"ted are reasonabl' related to the ob7ectiveso the search and not e5cessivel' intrusive in light o the nature o the misconduct.

)""l'ing the above standards and "rinci"les, the #ourt then addressed the ollo%ingissues& 81: Did "etitioner have a reasonable e5"ectation o "rivac' in his oice and

com"uter iles and 82: as the search authori6ed b' the res"ondent #ivil !ervice

#ommission #hair, the co"'ing o the contents o the hard drive on "etitioners com"uter,reasonable in its ince"tion and sco"e Here, the relevant surrounding circumstances to

consider include& 81: the em"lo'ees relationshi" to the item sei6ed 82: %hether the item%as in the immediate control o the em"lo'ee %hen it %as sei6ed and 8+: %hether the

em"lo'ee too; actions to maintain his "rivac' in the item./he #ourt ans%ered the irst issue in the negative. $etitioner ailed to "rove that he had an

actual 8sub7ective: e5"ectation o "rivac' either in his oice or governmentissued com"uter%hich contained his "ersonal iles. $etitioner did not allege that he had a se"arate enclosed

oice %hich he did not share %ith an'one, or that his oice %as al%a's loc;ed and not o"ento other em"lo'ees or visitors. Neither did he allege that he used "ass%ords or ado"ted

an' means to "revent other em"lo'ees rom accessing his com"uter iles. On the contrar',he submits that being in the "ublic assistance oice o the #!#, he normall' %ould have

visitors in his oice. Aven assuming that "etitioner had at least a sub7ective e5"ectation o"rivac' in his com"uter as he claims, the same is negated b' the "resence o "olic'

regulating the use o oice com"uters( /he #!# had im"lemented a "olic' that "uts its
https://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/177807.htmhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/177807.htmhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/177807.htmhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/177807.htm


7/9

em"lo'ees on notice that the' have no e5"ectation o "rivac' in an'thing the' create, store,send or receive on the oice com"uters. Jnder this "olic', the #!# ma' monitor the use o

the com"uter resources using both automated or human means. /his im"lies that onthes"ot ins"ections ma' be done to ensure that com"uter resources %ere used onl' or

legitimate business "ur"oses.On the second issue, the #ourt ans%ered in the airmative. /he search o "etitioners

com"uter iles %as conducted in connection %ith an investigation o %or;relatedmisconduct. Jnder the acts obtaining, the #ourt held that the search conducted on"etitioners com"uter %as 7ustiied at its ince"tion and in sco"e. 4riccio 7RicBy: A( ollo vs(Chairperson


8/9

must have some basis to su""ort itsel 84: there must be substantial evidence 8*: thedecision must be rendered on the evidence "resented at the hearing, or at least contained

in the record and disclosed to the "arties aected 8C: in arriving at a decision, the tribunalmust have acted on its o%n consideration o the la% and the acts o the controvers' and

must not have sim"l' acce"ted the vie%s o a subordinate and 8: the decision must berendered in such manner that res"ondents %ould ;no% the reasons or it and the various

issues involved. In the "resent case, the ith reuirement %as not com"lied %ith. (e'es%as not "ro"erl' a""rised o the evidence oered against him, %hich %ere eventuall' madethe bases o "etitioners decision that ound him guilt' o grave misconduct. /he act that

(e'es %as able to assail the adverse decision o the "etitioner viaa otion or(econsideration #um otion to !et the #ase or $reliminar' #onerence did not cure theviolation o his right to due "rocess in this case. (e'es iled the said motion "recisel' to

raise the issue o the violation o his right to due "rocess. )s it %ere, "etitioner rendered itsDecision dated !e"tember 24, 2001 on the basis o evidence that %ere not disclosed to

(e'es. /hus, it cannot be said that (e'es had a air o""ortunit' to suarel' andintelligentl' ans%er the accusations therein or to oer an' rebuttal evidence thereto. 6fficeof the 6m.udsman vs( Antonio '( Reyes$ (R( @o( 1051( 6cto.er 5$ 011(Government contract lac; o a""ro"riation. $etitioner D$H argues that the contracts %ith

res"ondents %ere void or not com"l'ing %ith !ections -* and -C o $residential Decree

144*, or the Government )uditing #ode o the $hili""ines, as amended b' A5ecutive OrderNo. 2=2. /hese sections reuire an a""ro"riation or the contracts and a certiication b' thechie accountant o the agenc' or b' the head o its accounting unit as to the availabilit' o

unds. In this case, there %as an a""ro"riation amounting to $h"400 million, %hich %asincreased to $h"00 million. /he unding %as or the rehabilitation o the areas devastated

and aected b' the eru"tion o t. $inatubo, %hich included the !acobiaEamban$arua(iver or %hich some o the channeling, desilting and di;ing %or;s %ere rendered b'

res"ondents construction com"anies. It %as, ho%ever, undis"uted that there %as nocertiication rom the chie accountant o D$H regarding the availabilit' o unds or the

dis"uted e5"enditure. In s"ite o the lac; o certiication, ho%ever, the !u"reme #ourt heldthat 7uris"rudence has consistentl' recogni6ed the rule that "a'ment or services done on

account o the government, but based on a void contract, cannot be avoided. /he contract

in this case %as not illegal "er se. Department of u.lic ForBs and Eigh/ays vs( Ronald (ui/a$ doing under the name 7R((( Construction$: et al($ (R( @o( 13---( 6cto.er 1$011(Government construction contracts "rice escalation. /he issue here is %hether $residential

Decree 1*=4 reuires the contractor to "rove that the "rice increase o constructionmaterials %as due to the direct acts o the government beore a "rice escalation is granted

in a construction contract. $etitioner argues that !ection - o $D 1*=4 reuires the

ollo%ing conditions beore an ad7ustment o the contract "rice ma' be made& 8i: there %asan increase or a decrease in the cost o labor, eui"ment, materials and su""lies or

construction and 8ii: the increase or decrease is due to the direct acts o the government.$etitioner stresses that res"ondent ailed to sho% the e5istence o these conditions. /he

#ourt disagreed. /he contractor does not need to "rove that the increase in construction

cost %as due to the direct acts o the government. $D 4*4, %hich %as enacted "rior to $D

1*=4, "rovides 8in relation to ad7ustment o contract "rice or "ublic %or;s "ro7ects: that>increase o "rices o gasoline and other uel oils and o cement shall be considered directacts o the Government.? #onseuentl', %hen $D 1*=4 re"roduced the "hrase >direct acts

o the government? %ithout su""l'ing a contrar' or dierent deinition, the deinition andcoverage "rovided b' the earlier enacted $D 4*4 %ere deemed ado"ted b' the later

decree. /hus, "roo o increase in uel or cement "rice during the contract "eriod is enoughto 7usti' a claim or "rice escalation based on such increase. hilippine conomic zoneAuthority vs( reen Asia Construction G Development Corporation$ etc($ (R( @o( 1!!(6cto.er 1,$ 011.
https://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/170512.htmhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/183444.htmhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/183444.htmhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/188866.htmhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/188866.htmhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/170512.htmhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/183444.htmhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/183444.htmhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/188866.htmhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/188866.htm


9/9

D) "o%er to demolish. D) alleges that b' virtue o D) (esolution No. 022-,!eries o 2002, it is em"o%ered to demolish Fustice Ganca'cos "ro"ert'. It urther alleges

that it demolished the "ro"ert' "ursuant to the Euilding #ode in relation to Ordinance No.2=04, as amended. Ho%ever, the !u"reme #ourt held that the "o%er to enorce the

"rovisions o the Euilding #ode %as lodged in the De"artment o $ublic or;s andHigh%a's, not in D). !ince there %as no evidence that the D) had been delegated

b' the D$H to im"lement the Euilding #ode, it necessaril' had no authorit' to carr' outthe demolition. )dditionall', the "enalt' "rescribed b' Ordinance No. 2=04 itsel does notinclude the demolition o illegall' constructed buildings in case o violations. Instead, it

merel' "rescribes a "unishment o a ine or b' im"risonment, or both, at the discretion o

the court. /he ordinance itsel clearl' states that it is the regular courts that %ill determine%hether there %as a violation o the ordinance. milio ancayco vs( Cito overnment ofuezon City and 2etro 2anila Development Authority=2etro 2anila Development Authorityvs( ustice milio A( ancayco "Retired#$ (R( @o( 10=(R( @o( 1,33( 6cto.er 11$011(Election Law

Alection "rotest ailure to ile "reliminar' conerence brie. In e5ercising its "o%ers and7urisdiction, as deined b' its mandate to "rotect the integrit' o elections, the #OAA#

>must not be strait7ac;eted b' "rocedural rules in resolving election dis"utes.? Here,

not%ithstanding the act that "etitioners motion or reconsideration %as not veriied, the#OAA# should have considered the merits o the said motion in light o "etitionersmeritorious claim that he %as not given timel' notice o the date set or the "reliminar'

conerence. /he essence o due "rocess is to be aorded a reasonable o""ortunit' to beheard and to submit an' evidence in su""ort o ones claim or deense. It is the denial o

this o""ortunit' that constitutes violation o due "rocess o la%. $rocedural due "rocessdemands "rior notice and hearing. /he act that "etitioner someho% acuired ;no%ledge or

inormation o the date set or the "reliminar' conerence b' means other than the oicialnotice sent b' the #OAA# is not an e5cuse to dismiss his "rotest, because it cannot be

denied that he %as not aorded reasonable notice and time to adeuatel' "re"are or andsubmit his brie. /his is "recisel' the reason %h' "etitioner %as onl' able to ile his

$reliminar' #onerence Erie on the da' o the conerence itsel. Hence, b' den'ing

"etitioners motion or reconsideration, %ithout ta;ing into consideration the violation o hisright to "rocedural due "rocess, the #OAA# also guilt' o grave abuse o

discretion. Salvador D( %iolago$ Sr( vs( Commission on lections and oan %( Alarilla$ (R(@o( 1,-1-3( 6cto.er -$ 011.Public O##icers$ublic oicers dishonest'. Good aith is ordinaril' used to describe that state o mind

denoting honest' o intention and reedom rom ;no%ledge o circumstances %hich ought to

"ut the holder u"on inuir'. In other %ords, good aith is actuall' a uestion ointention. )lthough this is something internal, one can ascertain a "ersons intention not

rom his o%n "rotestation o good aith, %hich is selserving, but rom evidence o hisconduct and out%ard acts. In this case, the acts and circumstances surrounding

"etitioners acuisition o the #ertiicate o Aligibilit' cast serious doubts on his goodaith. He made a deal %ith a retired #!# oicial and acce"ted the #ertiicate o Aligibilit'

rom the latters re"resentative. /hese circumstances reveal "etitioners ;no%ledge that the#!# oicial could have "ulled strings in order to obtain his #ertiicate o Aligibilit' and have

it delivered to his residence. Eesides, %hether some #!# "ersonnel should be heldadministrativel' liable or alsi'ing "etitioners #ertiicate o Aligibilit' is beside the

"oint. /he act that someone else alsiied the certiicate %ill not e5cuse him or ;no%ingl'using the same or his career advancement. /hus, the !u"reme #ourt held that that the #)

did not err in airming the "enalt' o dismissal and all its accessor' "enalties im"osed b'the #!#. Cesar S( Dumduma vs( Civil Service Commission$ (R( @o( 1!0!( 6cto.er -$011.
https://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/177807.htmhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/177807.htmhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/194143.htmlhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/194143.htmlhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/182606.htmhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/182606.htmhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/177807.htmhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/177807.htmhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/194143.htmlhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/194143.htmlhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/182606.htmhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/182606.htm

Documents

October 2011 Supreme Court Decisions on PoliticalLaw.doc