Quimpo v.

Tanodbayan, 146 SCRA 137 -- Tanodbayan Has Jurisdiction over all Government Owned Firms Regardless of How Organized. F: F. Quimpo filed a complaint w/ the Tanodbayan (TB) charging G. Dimaano and D. Remo, manager and analyst of Petrophil, w/ viol. of RA 3019 for their refusal to pay Quimpo's fees as surveyor. The TB dismissed the complaint, however, on the ground that his jurisdiction extended only to govt owned corps. organized under a special law. Petrophil is a corp. organized under the Gen. Corp. Code; it was acquired by the govt to carry out its oil and gasoline programs. Quimpo filed a petition for certiorari, questioning the decision of the TB. The new TB confessed judgment. ISSUE: WON PETROPHIL is a government owned or controlled corporation whose employees fall within the jurisdictional purview of the Tanodbayan for purposes of the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act? HELD: YES. Uphold the Tanodbayan jurisdiction. While it may be that PETROPHIL was not originally "created" as a GOCC, PETROPHIL became a subsidiary of PNOC and thus shed-off its private status. It is now funded and owned by the government as in fact, it was acquired to perform functions related to governmental programs and policies on oil. It was acquired not temporarily but as a permanent adjunct to perform essential government related functions. Cailles v. Bonifacio, 65 Phil 328 (1938) F: This is a quo warranto petition to oust respondent Bonifacio from the office of Provincial Governor of Laguna. It is contended that at the time he filed his certificate of candidacy and was elected to office, respondent was a Captain in the Philippine Army and for this reason, is ineligible to that office. HELD: Section 2, Art. XI of the 1935 Const. (similar to the 1987 provision) prohibits members of the Armed Forces from engaging in any partisan political activity or otherwise taking part in any election except to vote, but it does not ex vi termini grant or confer upon them the right of suffrage. As Section 431 of the Election Law, as amended disqualifies from voting only members in the active service of the Philippine Army and no claim is made that this discrimination is violative of the Constitution, it follows that the respondent, being in the reserve force, is not disqualified from voting. The respondent being a qualified elector and the possession by him of the other qualifications prescribed for an elective provincial office not being challenged, he is not ineligible to the office of provincial governor to which he has been elected. The constitutional provision mentioned contemplates only those in the active service otherwise it would lead to widespread disqualification of the majority of the able bodied men who are part of the reserve corps of the armed forces from voting and from being voted upon. Raison d' etre for the disqualification: Members of the armed forces are servants of the State and not the agents of any political group. Matibag vs. Benipayo, G.R. No. 149036, April 2, 2002 FACTS: COMELEC en banc appointed petitioner as Acting Director IV of the EID. Such appointment was renewed in temporary capacity twice, first by Chairperson Demetrio and then by Commissioner Javier. Later, PGMA appointed, ad interim, Benipayo as COMELEC Chairman, and Borra and Tuason as COMELEC Commissioners, each for a term of 7 yrs. The three took their oaths of office and assumed their positions. However, since the Commission on Appointments did not act on said appointments, PGMA renewed the ad interim appointments. ISSUES:

Whether or not the assumption of office by Benipayo, Borra and Tuason on the basis of the ad interim appointments issued by the President amounts to a temporary appointment prohibited by Sec. 1(2), Art. IX-C Assuming that the first ad interim appointments and the first assumption of office by Benipayo, Borra and Tuason are legal, whether or not the renewal of their ad interim appointments and subsequent assumption of office to the same positions violate the prohibition on reappointment under Sec. 1(2), Art. IX-C

RULING:

Nature of an Ad Interim Appointment An ad interim appointment is a permanent appointment because it takes effect immediately and can no longer be withdrawn by the President once the appointee has qualified into office. The fact that is subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments does not alter its permanent character. The Constitution itself makes an ad interim appointment permanent in character by making it effective until disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of Congress. The second paragraph of Sec.16, Art.VII of the Constitution provides as follows: The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress, whether voluntary or compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress. Thus, the ad interim appointment remains effective until such disapproval or next adjournment, signifying that it can no longer be withdrawn or revoked by the President. xxx ...the term ad interim appointment means a permanent appointment made by the President in the meantime that Congress is in recess. It does not mean a temporary appointment that can be withdrawn or revoked at any time. The term, although not found in the text of the Constitution, has acquired a definite legal meaning under Philippine jurisprudence.

AKBAYAN-YOUTH v. COMELEC Facts: Petitioners in this case represent the youth sector and they seek to seek to direct COMELEC to conduct a special registration before the May 14, 2001 General Elections, of new voters ages 18 to 21. According to them, around four million youth failed to register on or before the December 27, 2000 deadline set by the respondent COMELEC. However, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 3584 disapproving the request for additional registration of voters on the ground that Section 8 of R.A. 8189 explicitly provides that no registration shall be conducted during the period starting one hundred twenty (120) days before a regular election and that the Commission has no more time left to accomplish all pre-election activities. Aggrieved by the denial, petitioners filed before the SC the instant which seeks to set aside and nullify respondent COMELECs Resolution and/or to declare Section 8 of R. A. 8189 unconstitutional insofar as said provision effectively causes the disenfranchisement of petitioners and others similarly situated. Likewise, petitioners pray for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent COMELEC to conduct a special registration of new voters and to admit for registration petitioners and other similarly situated young Filipinos to qualify them to vote in the May 14, 2001 General Elections. Issues: 1.Whether or not respondent COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing COMELEC Resolution 2.Whether or not the SC can compel respondent COMELEC to conduct a special registration of new voters during the period between the COMELECs imposed December 27, 2000 deadline and the May 14, 2001 general elections. Held: 1. No The right of suffrage invoked by petitioners is not at all absolute. The exercise of the right of suffrage, as in the enjoyment of all other rights is subject to existing substantive and procedural requirements embodied in our Constitution, statute books and other repositories of law. As to the procedural limitation, the right of a citizen to vote is necessarily conditioned upon certain procedural requirements he must undergo: among others, the process of registration. Specifically, a citizen in order to be qualified to exercise his right to vote, in addition to the minimum requirements set by the fundamental charter, is obliged by law to register, at present, under the provisions of Republic Act No. 8189, otherwise known as the Voters Registration Act of 1996. Section 8, of the R.A. 8189, explicitly provides that No registration shall, however, be conducted during the period starting one hundred twenty (120) days before a regular election and ninety (90) days before a special election. The 100day prohibitive period serves a vital role in protecting the integrity of the registration process. Without the prohibitive periods, the

COMELEC would be deprived of any time to evaluate the evidence on the application. If we compromise on these safety nets, we may very well end up with a voters list full of flying voters, overflowing with unqualified registrants, populated with shadows and ghosts United Democratic Opposition vs Commission on Elections In 1981, the BP proposed amendments to the 1973 Constitution. The amendments were to be placed to a plebiscite for the peoples approval. The YES vote was being advanced by KBL Marcos Party. While the NO vote was being advanced by UNIDO. To ensure parity and equality, COMELEC issued Resolutions 1467-1469 w/c basically provided that there be equal opportunity, equal time and equal space on media use for campaigns for both sides. On 12 Mar 1981, Marcos campaigned for the YES vote via TV and radio from 9:30pm to 11:30pm. The same was broadcasted live by 26 TV stations and 248 radio stations nationwide. UNIDO petitioned before the COMELEC that they be granted the same opportunity as Marcos has pursuant to Resns 1467-69. COMELEC denied the demand. UNIDO assailed the denial as a denial of equal protection before the laws. ISSUE: Whether or not UNIDO was denied equal protection by virtue of COMELECs denial of their request. HELD: The SC ruled that UNIDO was not denied due process nor were they not afforded equal protection. It is the considered view of the SC that when Marcos conducted his pulong-pulong or consultation with the people on March 12, 1981, he did so in his capacity as President/Prime Minister of the Philippines and not as the head of any political party. Under the Constitution, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet shall be responsible . . . for the program of government and shall determine the guidelines of national policy. In instances where the head of state is at the same time the president of the political party that is in power, it does not necessarily follow that he speaks with two voices when he dialogues with the governed. The president is accorded certain privileges that the opposition may not have. Further, the SC cannot compel TV stations and radio stations to give UNIDO free air time as they are not party to this case. UNIDO must sought contract with these TV stations and radio stations at their own expense Sarmiento vs. COMELEC 212 SCRA 307, August 6, 1992 Facts: This special civil action for certiorari seek to set aside the Resolutions of Respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in the following Special Cases: 1) G.R. No. 105628 SPC No. 92-266 2) G.R. No. 105725 SPC No. 92-323 3) G.R. No. 105727 SPC No. 92-288 4) G.R. No. 105730 SPC No. 92-315 5) G.R. No. 105771 SPC No. 92-271 6) G.R. No. 105778 SPC No. 92-039 7) G.R. No. 105797 SPC No. 92-153 8) G.R. No. 105919 SPC No. 92-293 9) G.R. No. 105977 SPC No. 92-087 Issue: Whether the challenged Resolutions above specified (the SPC) as having been issued with grave abuse of discretion in that, inter alia, the Commission, sitting en banc, took cognizance of and decided the appeals without first referring them to any of it Divisions. Held: The COMELEC en banc acted without jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, when it resolved the appeals of petitioners in the above mentioned Special Cases without first referring them to any of its Divisions. Section 3, subdivision C, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution expressly provides: Sec. 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc. Said Resolutions are therefore, null and void and must be set aside. Consequently, the appeals are deemed pending before the Commission for proper referral to a Division. A resolution directing the COMELEC to assign said Special Cases to the Divisions pursuant to Section 8, Rule 3 of its Rules on assignment of cases would, logically, be in order. However, Section 16 of R.A. No. 7166 6 provides that all pre-proclamation cases pending before it shall be deemed terminated at the beginning of the term of the office involved. The terms of the offices involved in the Special Cases subject of these petitions

commenced at noon of June 30 1992. These cases have thus been rendered moot and such a resolution would only be an exercise in futility. Therefore, the instant petitions are DISMISSED but without prejudice to the filing by petitioners of regular elections protests. If the winning candidates for the positions involved in the Special Cases subject of these petitions have already been proclaimed, the running of the period to file the protests shall be deemed suspended by the pendency of such cases before the COMELEC and of these petitions before this Court. SWS vs Comelec Facts: Petitioner SWS and KPC states that it wishes to conduct an election survey throughout the period of the elections and release to the media the results of such survey as well as publish them directly. Petitioners argue that the restriction on the publication of election survey results constitutes a prior restraint on the exercise of freedom of speech without any clear and present danger to justify such restraint. Issue: Are the Comelec Resolutions prohibiting the holding of pre-polls and exit polls and the dissemination of their results through mass media, valid and constitutional? Ruling: No. The Court held that Section (5)4 is invalid because (1) it imposes a prior restraint on the freedom of expression, (2) it is a direct and total suppression of a category of expression even though such suppression is only for a limited period, and (3) the governmental interest sought to be promoted can be achieved by means other than suppression of freedom of expression. It has been held that "[mere] legislative preferences or beliefs respecting matters of public convenience may well support regulation directed at other personal activities, but be insufficient to justify such as diminishes the exercise of rights so vital to the maintenance of democratic institutions. Pimentel vs. COMELEC GR 161658, Nov. 3, 2003 Facts: Congress passed RA 9165, Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and makes it mandatory for candidates for public office, students of secondary and tertiary schools, officers and employees of public and private offices, and persons charged before the prosecutors office with certain offenses, among other personalities, to undergo a drug test. Hence, Senator Pimentel, who is a senatorial candidate for the 2004 synchronized elections, challenged Section 36(g) of the said law. Issue: is the mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office an unconstitutional imposition of additional qualification on candidates for Senator?

Held: Yes. Section 36 (g) of RA 9165, requiring all candidates for public office whether appointed or elected both in the national or local government undergo a mandatory drug test is UNCONSITUTIONAL. Under Sec.3, Art. VI of the Constitution, an aspiring candidate for Senator needs only to meet 5 qualifications: (1) citizenship, (2) voter registration, (3) literacy, (4) age, and (5) residency. The Congress cannot validly amend or otherwise modify these qualification standards, as it cannot disregard, evade, or weaken the force of a constitutional mandate, or alter or enlarge the Constitution. It is basic that if a law or an administrative rule violates any norm of the Constitution, that issuance is null and void and has no effect. In the discharge of their defined functions, the three departments of government have no choice but to yield obedience to the commands of the Constitution. Whatever limits it imposes must be observed. Case Digest on MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Association, Inc. G.R. NO. 135962 (March 27, 2000) November 10, 2010 FACTS: Respondent filed a case against petitioner enjoining them from opening the Neptune Street and prohibiting the demolition of the perimeter wall. The trial court denied issuance of a preliminary injunction. On appeal, the appellate court ruled that the MMDA has no authority to order the opening of Neptune Street, and cause the demolition of its perimeter walls. It held that the authority is lodged in the City Council of Makati by ordinance. Hence this petition. HELD: The MMDA has no power to enact ordinances for the welfare of the community. Hence, its proposed opening of Neptune Street which was not mandated by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Makati City, is illegal.

G.R. No. 133495. September 3, 1998 BENJAMIN U. BORJA, JR., petitioner vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and JOSE T. CAPCO, JR., respondents. MENDOZA, J. Facts: Private respondent Jose T. Capco, Jr. was elected vice-mayor of Pateros on January 18, 1988 for a term ending June 30, 1992. On September 2, 1989, he became mayor, by operation of law, upon the death of the incumbent, Cesar Borja. For the next two succeeding elections in 1992 and 1995, he was again re-elected as Mayor. On March 27, 1998, private respondent Capco filed a certificate of candidacy for mayor of Pateros relative to the May 11, 1998 elections. Petitioner Benjamin U. Borja, Jr., who was also a candidate for mayor, sought Capcos disqualification on the theory that the latter would have already served as mayor for three consecutive terms by June 30, 1998 and would therefore be ineligible to serve for another term after that. The Second Division of the Commission on Elections ruled in favor of petitioner and declared private respondent Capco disqualified from running for reelection as mayor of Pateros but in the motion for reconsideration, majority overturned the original decision. Issue: Whether Capco has served for three consecutive terms as Mayor?

Ruling: No. Article X, 8 of the Constitution provides: SEC. 8. The term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, shall be three years and no such official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected. This provision is restated in 43(b) of the Local Government Code (R.A. No. 7160): Sec. 43. Term of Office - . . . (b) No local elective official shall serve for more than three (3) consecutive terms in the same position. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of service for the full term for which the elective official concerned was elected. A textual analysis supports the ruling of the COMELEC that Art. X, 8 contemplates service by local officials for three consecutive terms as a result of election.