Constitutional Law 1

[Assignment for July 26 & 30, 2019]

Note: Same Assignment for July 23, 2019 (Sec. 6-16, Art. VIII);
Article VIII Digests will be collected on July 23, 2019.
For July 26, 2019
(a) Read Articles IX-A & IX-B (pages 1035-1071, Bernas, 2009 ed.]
(c) Assigned cases for digest [due on July 30, 2019]

 Does the designation of Duque as member of the Board of Directors or Trustees of the
GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF, in an ex officio capacity, impair the independence of
the CSC and violate the constitutional prohibition against the holding of dual or multiple
offices for the Members of the Constitutional Commissions?
 Is Section 14, Chapter 3, Title I-A, Book V of EO 292 valid and constitutional?
Funa vs. Duque, G.R. No. 191672, Nov. 25, 2014
 Does the CSC have appellate jurisdiction over dismissal orders of PNRC employees by its
Board since PNRC is sui generis?
Torres vs. De Leon, G.R. No. 199440, Jan. 18, 2016
 Were petitioners illegally terminated in view of their security of tenure?
Feliciano & Gonzales vs. DND, G.R. No. 199232 & 201577, Nov. 8, 2017
 Do R.A. No. 6656 and the Civil Service Commission intrude into the discretion of the
appointing authority?
Cerilles vs. CSC, G.R. No. 180845, Nov. 22, 2017
 By holding concurrent positions as University Chancellor and TMC Project Director, did Dr.
Posadas violate the constitutional provision against double employment and double
compensation?
Posadas vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. 168951, July 17, 2013
 Does the grant of allowances and benefits to the officers and employees of MARINA
constitute double compensation?
MARINA vs. COA, G.R. No. 185812, Jan. 13, 2015
 Under R.A. No. 6758, what allowances are expressly excluded from in the standardized
salaries?
PCSO vs. COA Chair Pulido, G.R. No. 216776, April 19, 2016
 Under Section 8 of the DBP charter, does the DBP board have authority (with the approval
of the President) to grant themselves benefits other than per diems?
 Are the responsible officers cited under the ND liable to refund the disallowed amounts?
DBP vs. COA, G.R. No. 221706, March 13, 2018
(c) Prepare for a short quiz.

For July 30, 2019

(a) Read Articles IX-C & IX-D (pages 1071-1109, Bernas, 2009 ed.]
(b) Read pages 215-235 of the 2016 Consti 1 Syllabus.
(c) Assigned cases for digest [due on July 30, 2019]
 Whether or not the fear of vote buying justify the Comelec to deactivate the “voter verified
paper audit trail” function of the voting counting machine?
Bagumbayan vs. Comelec, GR. No. 222731, March 8, 2016
  Is a voter's receipt requirement only necessary when Comelec uses a direct recording
electronic election system?
 Did the Supreme Court rule in Roque vs. Comelec, that “the paper ballot satisfies the
VVPAT requirement”?
Bagumbayan vs. Comelec, GR. No. 222731, March 8, 2016 [MR]
 Can the COMELEC, in the same cancellation of COC case, decide the qualification or lack
thereof of the candidate?
Grace Poe vs. Comelec, GR. Nos. 221697, 221698-700, March 8, 2016
 For fixing a longer election period for the 2013 Election, is Comelec Res. No. 9851 valid?
Javier vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 215847, Jan. 12, 2016
 Is MECO a governmental entity? If not, are its accounts subject to the COA audit?
Funa vs. MECO, G.R. No. 193462, Feb. 4, 2014
 Is AFP-RSBS within the general audit power of COA?
Paraiso-Aban vs. COA, G.R. No. 217948, Jan. 12, 2016
 Does Commission on Audit have the audit jurisdiction of the funds of the Executive
Committee of the Metro Manila Film Festival which is not a public office?
Fernando vs. COA, G.R. Nos. 237938 and 237944-45, December 04, 2018

2017 BAR
The Congress establishes by law Philippine Funds, Inc., a private corporation, to
receive foreign donations coming from abroad during national and local calamities and disasters,
and to enable the unhampered and speedy disbursements of the donations through the mere
action of its Board of Directors. Thereby, delays in the release of the donated funds occasioned by
the stringent rules of procurement would be avoided. Also, the releases would not come under the
jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit (COA). Can the Congress pass the law that would exempt
the foreign grants from the jurisdiction of the COA? Explain your answer.

2 0 1 8 B A R Ang Araw, a multi-sectoral party-list organization duly registered as such with the
Commission on Elections (Comelec), was proclaimed as one of the winning party-list groups in the
last national elections. Its first nominee, Alejandro, assumed office as the party-list representative.
About one year after Alejandro assumed office, the Interim Central Committee of Ang Araw
expelled Alejandro from the party for disloyalty and replaced him with Andoy, its second nominee.
Alejandro questioned before the Comelec his expulsion and replacement by Andoy. The Comelec
considered Alejandro's petition as an intra-party dispute which it could resolve as an incident of its
power to register political parties; it proceeded to uphold the expulsion. Is the Comelec's ruling
correct? Explain.

2 0 1 8 B A R Two petitions for the cancellation of Certificate of Candidacy (CoC)/Denial of Due

Course were filed with the Comelec against two candidates running as municipal mayors of
different towns. The first petition was against Anselmo. Years ago, Anselmo was charged and
convicted of the crime of rape by final judgment, and was sentenced to suffer the principal penalty
of reclusion perpetua which carried the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification.
While Anselmo was in prison, the President commuted his sentence and he was discharged from
prison. The second petition was against Ambrosio. Ambrosio's residency was questioned because
he was allegedly a "green card holder," i.e., a permanent resident of the US, as evidenced by a
certification to this effect from the US Embassy. Acting on the recommendations of its Law
Department, the Comelec en banc motu proprio issued two resolutions granting the petitions
against Anselmo and Ambrosio. Both Anselmo and Ambrosio filed separate petitions with the
Supreme Court assailing the resolutions cancelling their respective CoCs. Both claimed that the
Comelec en banc acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
because the petitions should have first been heard and resolved by one of the Comelec's Divisions.
Are Anselmo and Ambrosio correct? Explain.

(c) Prepare for a short quiz.