Case Digest Pascual vs. Secretary of Public Works and Communications Art.

6 29 (1) Case; y Appeal by petitioner Wenceslao Pascual, from the decision of the CFI of Rizal, dismissing the case and dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction. Facts: y Pascual as a governor of Rizal instituted an action of declaratory relief, w/ injuction on R.A. 920 an act appropriating funds for public works , w/c contains an item of P85,000, for the construction, repair, extension and movement of the Pasig feeder roads terminals, w/n the Antonio subdivision at Pasig Rizal. y The petitioner alleged that, the appropriation was illegal, because the property which was used for the construction of the roads, was a private property owned by Jose Zulueta, a senator at that time. y Jose Zulueta, after the enactment of the said statute, executed a deed of donation. y The court of first instance ruled in favor of the respondent. Hence, the appeal to the SC Issue: y The validity of the appropriation of P85,000 for the construction of the feeder roads. Held: y It is a general rule that the legislature is without power to appropriate revenue tax fro anything but a public purpose. y The rule is set forth in the corpus juris secumdum: Taxing power must be exercised for public purposes only. Money raised by taxation can be expended only for public purposes and not for the advantage of public individuals. y The test of constitutionality of a senate requiring the use of public funds is whether the statute is designed to promote public interest as opposed to the furtherance of the advantage of individuals, although each advantage to individuals might incidentally serve the public. y The legality of the appropriation depended on whether the said roads were public or private at the time the bill was passed by congress. However, the land to constructed belonged then to respondent Zulueta, the result of the appropriation thereof sought a private purpose, and hence, null and void. y The donation made by Zulueta was irrelevant to the validity of the appropriation. The validity of the statute depends upon the powers of congress at the time of its passage or approval, not upon the events occurring, or acts performed subsequently thereto. Decision: y Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed, and the records are remanded to the lower court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision, with the costs of this instance against respondent Jose Zulueta.

Drilon vs. CA Art. VII 19 Case: y A petition by the DOJ to review the decision of the CA, granting the prohibition filed by petitioner-respondent. Facts: y Private respondents, Rodolfo Ganzon and Raul Paredes were charged w/ double murder before a military commission. Paredes was acquitted, while Ganzon was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment w/ hard labor. y Ganzon served his sentence for 6 yrs, and then was released by the order of the former president, and placed under house arrest. y In 1988 admin. Changed. Sec. Of Justice directed state prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation against the private respondents for the murders. y Respondents filed for dismissal on the ground that Ganzon has been extended an absolute pardon and having been convicted can no longer be tried anew, and Paredes on the ground that he has been acquitted. But this was denied by the prosecutor, hence the petition to CA by respondents. CA ruled in favour of the respondents, hence the petition by the DOJ to SC. Issue 1: y Whether or not the government may proceed criminally against the private respondents despite a verdict earlier rendered by the military commission. Ruling; y The court reiterates its ruling in Tan vs Barrios, Why should one who has accepted the justices of the verdict of the military court, who is satisfied that he had a fair hearing, and who is willing to serve his sentence in full, be dragged through a harrow of another hearing? y In Cruz case, the court decrees that all the petitioners in said proceedings who have been serving their sentences of imprisonment shall have the option either to complete the service of their sentence, or be tried anew by the civil courts. Ganzon accepted the judgment against him. Issue 2; y Whether or not Ganzon has completed the service of his sentence. Ruling: y The pardoning power of the president is final and unappealable. The commutation of sentence in w/c the chief executive reduces a sentence, extinguishes the criminal liability partially. The commutation of sentence need not be in a specific form, it is sufficient that Ganzon was released w/ no terms and conditions, except that he should remain under house arrest. y House arrest is not considered as a continuation of sentence, because: 1) arrest is not a penalty, ut a mere means of taking a person into custody in order that he may be forthcoming to answer for the commission of an offense;2) during martial law, a means to carry out proclamation no. 1881. Decision: y Petition is denied.

CA vs Department of Budget and Managment Art. IX A 5 Case: y A motion for reconsideration of respondent DBM, praying that this court reconsider its decision. Facts; y Civil service Commission filed a suit against DBM for not releasing the whole amount appropriated for them. y DBM alleges that, they cannot release the funds due to revenue collection shortfall and that DBM is also just complying with the no report, no release policy. Issue: y Whether or not the allegations of the DBM are tenable. Ruling: y Given a revenue shortfall, it is still very possible for the DBM to release the full amount appropriated for the agencies w/ fiscal autonomy especially since, as noted in the decision, the total appropriation for such agencies in recent years does not even reach 3% of the national budget. y Under the no report, no release policy, DBM requires for the timely submission of the financial reports. However, CSC and all other agencies with fiscal autonomy are not required since they are under the this release agencies which no agency performance review is needed. However, this is not to say that agencies vested with fiscal autonomy have no reporting responsibility at all to the DBM. They may submit reports relative to its appropriation for records purposes only.

Montebon vs COMELEC Art. X 8 Case: y Petition for certiorari assailing the resolution of the First Division of COMELEC denying the petition for disqualification and the resolution of the COMELEC EN BANC denying the motion for reconsideration. Facts: y Petitioners Montebon and Ondoy, and Respondent Potencioso, Jr. were candidates for municipal councilor of the Municipality of Tuburan, Cebu. y Petitioners filed a petition for disqualification against respondent w/ the COMELEC alleging that respondent had been elected and served three consecutive terms as municipal councilor. y Respondent admitted that he had been elected for three consecutive terms, but argued that the service of his 2nd term was interrupted when he succeeded as v-mayor of Tuburan due to the retirement of the current v-mayor. y Petitioner further alleges that the respondent s assumption of office should not be considered an interruption in the service since it was a voluntary renunciation of his office. y COMELEC denied the petition and ruled in favour of the respondent, hence the petition for certiorari. Issue: y Whether or not the respondent s assumption of office as v-mayor interrupted his second term as municipal councilor. Ruling: y Succession in local government offices is by operation of law. Sec. 44 of RA 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code, provides that if a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the v-mayor, the highest ranking sangguniang member shall become v-mayor. It is clear therefore that his assumption of office cannot be voluntary renunciation of his office. y In Lonzanida v COMELEC provides, Involuntary severance from office for any length of time short of the full term provided by law amounts to an interruption of continuity of service. y SC quotes w/ approval the ruling of the COMELEC that: The legal successor is not given any option under the law on whether to accept the vacated post or not. Sec. 44 of the Local Government Code makes no exceptions. Xxx Succession by law to a vacated government office is characteristically not voluntary since it involves the performance of a public duty by a government official, xxx it is therefore more compulsory and obligatory rather than voluntary. Decision: y The petition is dismissed for lack of merit.