POLITICAL LAW MENDOZA DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 Carrie Bee, Aldrich, Cayo, She

Prefatory Note: These d !ests a"" ha#e $%st &e '( '( Me)do*a as the r ponente(

CONSTIT+TIONAL LAW
,+NDAMENTAL POWERS O, T-E STATE E./ro/r at o)

Republic of the Philippines v. Salem Investment Corporation G.R. No. 108824 September 14, 1994 ,ACTS: A law was passed authorizing the expropriation of a parcel of land. Before expropriation proceedings commenced, the original owner sold the land to buyer partial payment was made. Note that at this point, expropriation proceeding had not yet begun. Buyer filed for specific performance to compel original owner to transfer title. While the specific performance case was pending, the government instituted expropriation proceedings pursuant to the aforementioned law. Buyer filed a motion for intervention alleging that the property had been sold to him and that he had already filed a case for specific performance. ISS+E: Whether ust compensation should be paid to buyer or original owner. -ELD: !ust compensation should be paid to the buyer. "etermination of this issue hinges on whether the original owner had already been divested of title and therefore without authority to dispose of the land when it entered into a contract with buyer. #he $% held that since ust compensation has not yet been paid, title remained with original owner, vesting him with power to exercise acts of ownership. &ence, original owner validly transferred title to buyer which ma'es the buyer the rightful recipient of ust compensation. Macawiwili Gold Mining and Dev. Co., et al v. Court of G.R. No. 115104 ctober 12, 1998 ppeals

,ACTS: #he $upreme %ourt recognized the possessory right of (acawiwili and )mico over mining claims in Benguet as against *hilex (ining %orp. )n the surface of these mining claims, *hilex owned improvements consisting of roads, facilities, and bun'houses that were used by *hilex in its other mining claims. *hilex sought to expropriate the surface of the area where these improvements were located pursuant to $ection +, of *" -./. -ELD: #he land cannot be expropriated. 0xpropriation demands that the land be private land. When the $upreme %ourt awarded the possessory rights over the land to (acawiwili and )mico, it stripped the land of its private character and gave it its public character to be utilized for mining operations. *roperty already devoted to public use may be expropriated only if done directly by the national legislature or under a specific grant of authority to the delegate. #he authority granted by *" -./ is merely general and will not suffice. Philippine !eterans "an# v. Court of ppeals G.R. No. 1!2"#" $a%&ary 18, 2000 ,ACTS: #he "epartment of Agrarian 1eform expropriated four parcels of land owned by petitioner. *etitioner argues that "A1 ad udicators have no urisdiction to determine ust compensation for the ta'ing of lands under the %A1* because such urisdiction is vested in the 1#%. -ELD: As an administrative agency, the "A1 has primary urisdiction to determine in a preliminary manner the reasonable compensation to be paid for lands ta'en under the %A1* in administrative proceedings. &owever, such determination is sub ect to challenge in the courts in udicial proceedings. #here is thus no conflict between the urisdiction of the "A1 and that of the 1#%s. Manila v. Serrano G.R. No. 142!04. $&%e 20, 2001 ,ACTS: After filing a complaint for expropriation and ma'ing a deposit, the %ity of (anila obtained an order from the 1#% directing the issuance of a writ of possession over the $errano2s property in its favor.

POLITICAL LAW MENDOZA DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 Carrie Bee, Aldrich, Cayo, She

4pon a motion by the $erranos, the %A issued an in unction en oining the %ity of (anila from proceeding with expropriation proceedings because there was no showing that the %ity of (anila attempted the other modes of ac5uisition as re5uired in 66,738 of 1.A. No. 9:9,. ISS+E; Whether the %A was correct in en oining expropriation proceedings because of the lac' of showing of conformity with the law regarding other modes of ac5uisition. -ELD; No. )nce a proper complaint for expropriation is filed and a sufficient deposit is made, the issuance of the writ of possession becomes ministerial. Whether the %ity of (anila has complied with the re5uirement of other modes of ac5uisition re5uires the presentation of evidence something that is done in the expropriation proceedings. 0xpropriation proceedings consist of two stages; first, condemnation of the property after it is determined that its ac5uisition will be for a public purpose or public use and, second, the determination of ust compensation to be paid for the ta'ing of private property which is made by the court with the assistance of not more than three commissioners. $slaban v. !da. de %norio. G.R. No. 14#0#2. $&%e 28, 2001. ,ACTS: <da. de )norio is the owner of a lot upon which an irrigation canal was constructed by the government. "espite demands, she was not paid ust compensation. ISS+E: Whether <da. de )norio is entitled to ust compensation. -ELD: =es. #he defense of the government is that since the land was ac5uired by free patent, there is an encumbrance upon it to give way to any canals. &owever, this provision of the >and 1egistration Act applies only where the certificate of title does not state that the boundaries of the canal have been pre7determined. ?n this case, the land was registered before the determination of the canal2s boundaries there should have been expropriation proceedings and payment of ust compensation.
BILL O, RIG-TS D%e Pro&ess Ad0 ) strat #e D%e Pro&ess

$dgar M. Go, I&P v. &ational Police Commission G.R. No. 10"845 April 18, 199" ,ACTS: *etitioner was dismissed from the )longapo *olice "epartment for alleged involvement in gambling activities. &e now claims that he was denied due process because no copy of the complaint had been served on him, and he was not able to attend the hearing because he had not been previously notified. -ELD: *etitioner was denied due process. ?t is mandatory that charges be specified in writing and that the affidavits in support thereof be attached to the complaint because these are the only ways by which evidence against the respondent can be brought to his 'nowledge. ?n this case, there was no formal complaint filed against petitioner. #he Board merely relied on reports based on investigations conducted by the team that raided petitioner2s residence to support the dismissal. #hese reports did not appear in the records of the case which was tantamount to a violation of the re5uirements of administrative due process.
Warra)t"ess Arrest

People v. &arciso &a'areno, et al. G.R. No. 10!9#4 A&'&(t 1, 199# ,ACTS: Nazareno and 1egala were convicted of murder. Accused7appellants claim that their warrantless arrests were illegal and ustifies the nullification of the proceedings of the trial court. -ELD: Accused7appellants waived the right to ob ect to the irregularity of their arrest when they pleaded not guilty and participated in the trial. Any defect in their arrest must be deemed cured when they voluntarily submitted to the urisdiction of the court. ?f ob ections based on this

POLITICAL LAW MENDOZA DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 Carrie Bee, Aldrich, Cayo, She

ground are waived, the illegality of the arrest will not render the subse5uent proceedings void and deprive the $tate of its right to convict the guilty when all the facts on record point to the culpability of accused.
C%stod a" I)#est !at o)

People v. Re(naldo $vangelista G.R. No(. 84!!2)!! *ay 8, 199# ,ACTS: #he accused confessed to the crime of murder to a policeman while the two were eating in a store. &e now claims that the confession was inadmissible, because he was not warned of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel. -ELD: #he (iranda rights are applicable only when the suspect has been ta'en into custody or has otherwise been deprived of his freedom in a substantial way. ?n this case, the accused was not in custody when he confessed. #herefore, the right is not applicable.
,reedo0 Of E./ress o) L 1e"

!as)ue' v. Court of ppeals G.R. No. 1189"1 September 15, 1999 ,ACTS: ?n an interview published in a newspaper, <as5uez denounced the barangay chairman for alleged landgrabbing. #he barangay chairman filed a complaint against <as5uez for libel. -ELD: 0ven if a defamatory statement is false, no liability can attach if it relates to official conduct, unless the public official concerned proves that the statement was made with actual malice. A rule placing on the accused the burden of showing the truth or allegations of official misconduct and good motives would infringe on freedom of expression.
S/ee&h a)d the E"e&tora" Pro&ess

$milio M.R. %sme*a, et al v. C%M$+$C G.R. No. 1!22!1 *arch !1, 1998 ,ACTS: *etitioners, both candidates for public office, re5uest for a re7examination of the validity of sec 33@bA of the 0lectoral 1eform >aw of 3,B9 which prohibits mass media from selling or giving print space and air time for campaign or other political purposes, except to the %)(0>0%. -ELD: #he law is valid. #here is no total ad ban nor a restriction on the content of the speech, but merely a regulation of the period and place for campaigning. #he exercise of the regulatory power of the state is ustified by the valid governmental ob ective of promoting e5uality of opportunity in the use of mass media for political advertising. Any restriction on speech is only incidental, and it is no more than is necessary to achieve this purpose. ?t is reasonable because it applies only to the election period and because the %)(0>0% is mandated to procure print space and air time for the purposes of the candidates.

,elecom and "roadcast ttorne(s of the Philippines v. C%M$+$C G.R. No. 1!2922 April 21, 1998 ,ACTS: *etitioners #elecom and Broadcast Attorneys of the *hilippines and C(A 9 5uestion the validity of $ection ,: of the )mnibus 0lection %ode which re5uires that television and radio time be given free of charge to the %)(0>0%. -ELD: #he law is valid. #he airwaves are given by the Covernment as a franchise. A franchise is a privilege that is sub ect to amendment by %ongress when the common good so re5uires. #here is no violation of the e5ual protection of the laws even if the %ourt decided in +hil. +re(( ,%(tit&te -. C *./.C that the use of the print media by the %)(0>0% should be compensated. #here are substantial distinctions between print and broadcast media that ustify the difference in treatment.

POLITICAL LAW MENDOZA DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 Carrie Bee, Aldrich, Cayo, She

S-S v. C%M$+$C G.R. No. 14"5"1. *ay 5, 2001 ,ACTS; #he %)(0>0% issued a regulation en oining the publication of election surveys 3+D9 days before nationalDlocal elections. $ocial Weather $tation and the publisher of the (anila $tandard challenge the regulation as violative of the freedom of expression. ISS+E; Whether the %)(0>0% can en oin the publication of election survey results. -ELD: No. #he regulation is a prior restraint on speech, which has a heavy presumption against its validity. #he $% also applied the following rules; government regulation is ustified @3A if it is within the constitutional power of the CovernmentE @:A if it furthers an important or substantial government interestE @/A if the government interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expressionE and @-A if the incidental restriction on the freedom of expression is no greater than essential to the furtherance of the interest. #he regulation fails rule F3 since there is a causal connection between expression and the asserted government interest. ?t also fails rule F: since it could have been more narrowly drawnE prohibited speech such as erroneous, libelous or misleading surveys could have been punished instead of suppressing all surveys.

R !ht To Tra#e"

Imelda Marcos v. Sandiganba(an. G.R. No. /)1151!2)!4. A&'&(t 9, 1995. ,ACTS; After her conviction in the $andiganbayan and while her motion for reconsideration was pending, ?melda (arcos2s filed various motions for leave to travel abroad for medical diagnosis and treatmentE letters from various physicians supported her re5uest. )n its own instance, the $andiganbayan sought the opinion of independent doctors and decided that it was not absolutely necessary that (arcos see' medical treatment abroad. -ELD: (arcos did not have an absolute right to leave the country and the burden was on her to prove that because of danger to health if not to her life there was necessity to see' medical treatment in foreign countries. Whether the accused should be permitted to leave the urisdiction for humanitarian reasons is a matter of the courtGs sound discretion. #he active intervention of respondent *residing !ustice in the trial of the case, by consulting with independent doctors, was ustified by the fact that the sub ect with which the court was dealing was a highly technical one and he wanted to clarify for himself a number of medical 5uestions. #he proper method of determination of necessity of travel is by forming a oint panel composed of representatives from both the defendant and the prosecution whereby the consensus reached by them will be the guide of the court.
CITIZENS-IP

Mercado v. Man'ano G.R. No. 1!50!# *ay 2#, 1999 ,ACTS: An opponent and a voter sought 0du (anzano2s dis5ualification as candidate for vice mayor on the ground that he was a dual citizen. -ELD: ?t is dual allegiance, not dual citizenship that is a ground for dis5ualification from running for public office. Hor candidates with dual citizenship, it is enough if, upon the filing of their certificates of candidacy, they elect *hilippine citizenship to terminate their status as dual citizens.
LEGISLATI'E DEPARTMENT No)2O1ser#a)&e of I)ter)a" R%"es

.o#er P. rro(o, et al v. .ose De !enecia, et al G.R. No. 12"255 $&%e 20, 1998 ,ACTS: #he (a ority >eader of the &ouse moved for the approval of a conference committee report. #he %hair as'ed if there was any ob ection to the motion. 1ep. !o'er Arroyo as'ed, IWhat is that, (r. $pea'erJK #he %hair declared the report approved without paying attention to

POLITICAL LAW MENDOZA DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 Carrie Bee, Aldrich, Cayo, She

Arroyo. *etitioners claim that Arroyo2s 5uestion was a privileged 5uestion or a point of order which under the rules of the house has precedence over other matters. -ELD: Arroyo2s 5uestion was neither a privileged 5uestion nor a point of order. A privileged 5uestion is one affecting the duties, conduct, rights, privileges, dignity, integrity or reputation of the &ouse or its members. A point of order is used to re5uire the &ouse or any of its members to observe its own rules. ?n this case, there was no violation of rules because it is an established practice in the approval of a conference committee report for the %hair simply to as' if there are ob ections to the motion for approval of the report. #he law cannot be invalidated simply because of an alleged non7observance of internal rules of the &ouse.
$+DICIAL DEPARTMENT Le!a" Sta)d )!

/ilosba(an v. Morato G.R. No. 118910 $&ly 1", 1995 ,ACTS: ?n 0ilo(baya% -. G&i%'o%a the %ourt invalidated the %ontract of >ease between the *%$) and the *C(% on the ground that it had been made in violation of the charter of the *%$). As a result, the parties entered into a new 05uipment >ease Agreement @0>AA. *etitioners again sought to declare the 0>A invalid. -ELD: *etitioners have neither standing to bring this suit nor substantial interest to ma'e them real parties in interest within the meaning of 1ule / 6: of the 1ules of %ourt. !ustice (endoza ratiocinated that issues arising from the "eclaration of *rinciples are N)# constitutional issues enough for purposes of standing since they were merely guidelines for congressional action, guidelines which, until given flesh by legislation, were not sources of constitutional rights. "eclaration of *rinciples does not offer basis for affirmative relief nor for stri'ing down official actions unless it spea's of a right conferred. #o establish standing, the parties must be able to show that they are in immediate danger of sustaining direct in ury in this case, no such potential in ury is shown. #he previous case cannot be considered (tare deci(i( because it was a departure form the settled rule on standing.
De"ay ) Prose&%t o) of Cases3Ad0 ) strat #e Sa)&t o)s

"ala(o v. "uban .r. A.*. No. R1$)99)14"" September 9, 1999 ,ACTS: Balayo filed a complaint against !udge Buban for ta'ing almost three years to decide his case. &e also charged !udge Buban with falsification of public documents, violation of the Anti7Craft and %orrupt *ractices Act, and gross ignorance of the law in rendering the decision. -ELD: Hor his failure to render the decision within the reglementary period, !udge Buban should be fined *+,888. &owever, the criminal and administrative charges against him should be dismissed for being premature, since an appeal of the 5uestioned decision is still pending before the %ourt of Appeals. 1esort to udicial remedies, as well as entry of udgment in the corresponding action or proceeding is a prere5uisite for the ta'ing of administrative, civil, or criminal actions against the udges concerned.
A//e""ate $%sr sd &t o) Of The SC May Not Be I)&reased W tho%t Its Co)se)t

0irst +epanto v. C G.R. No. 1105"1. ctober ", 1994 ,ACTS: Article B: or the 3,B9 )mnibus ?nvestments %ode provided for direct appeals to the $upreme %ourt from decisions and final orders of the B)? this was done without the concurrence of the $upreme %ourt. -ELD: $ince Article B: increased the appellate urisdiction of the $upreme %ourt without its advice and concurrence, such article never became effective and the original appellate body, the %ourt of Appeals, retain its urisdiction.

POLITICAL LAW MENDOZA DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 Carrie Bee, Aldrich, Cayo, She

CONSTIT+TIONAL COMMISSIONS Co00 ss o) o) A%d t

0ranco v. Commission on udit G.R. No. 128001 September 22, 1999 ,ACTS: #he "irector of the *""%* as'ed for authority from the "ept. of Budget and (anagement @"B(A to grant incentive awards to its employees. #he "B( did not act on the re5uest. #hus, the %ommission on Audit disallowed the disbursement for want of authority from the "B(. -ELD: #here is no 5uestion that prior authority from the "B( is needed for the use of savings for the payment of incentive awards. &owever, in this case, the %)A should not have disallowed the disbursement while the re5uest for such authority was still pending with the "B(.
C # " Ser# &e Co00 ss o)

1moso v. CSC. G.R. No. 1102"#. $&ly 29, 1994 ,ACTS: 4moso was appointed as $upervising %ivil 0ngineer by the $ecretary of *ublic Wor's and &ighways. %aronan filed a protest and the complaints committee recommended that he be appointed instead, with 4moso filling his vacated position. #he $ecretary lent his approval. 4moso filed a petition claiming that he is the Inext7in7ran',K that his appointment was endorsed, and the recommendation was approved by the 1egional "irector. ISS+E: Whether the $ecretary could appoint %aronan despite 4moso2s status as next in line and the approval of his appointment by the 1egional "irector. -ELD: =es. ?t has been declared time and again that even if petitioner occupies a Lnext7in7ran'L position, that fact alone does not impose on the appointing authority the duty to appoint petitioner. Also, appointing power is vested in the "epartment $ecretary, and such power, however, may be delegated to the 1egional "irector sub ect, however, to the approval, revision, modification and reversal of the "epartment $ecretary. +a'o v. Civil Service Commission. G.R. No. 108824. September 14, 1994 ,ACTS: #he %$%, acting on a tip, chec'ed its records and verified the eligibility exam scores of >azo. #he rechec'ing disclosed that petitioner2s actual score was well below the minimum re5uirement. ?t issued a resolution revo'ing his eligibility for being null and void. >azo now 5uestions the revocation for being without due process. ISS+E: Whether the %$% can revo'e eligibility for being null and void, without notice and hearing. -ELD: ?n this case, yes. #his case is an exception to the general rule re5uiring notice and hearing because all it re5uired was the reevaluation of documents. No evidentiary hearing was re5uired. #he %$%2s power to issue a certificate of eligibility carries with it the power to revo'e a certificate for being null and void. Cuevas v. "acal G.R. No. 1!9!82. 2ecember #, 2000 ,ACTS; 1amos appointed Bacal, a civil servant with the ran' of %0$) ???, to the post of %hief *ublic Attorney, *ublic Attorney2s )ffice, a post which re5uires the ran' of %0$) ? her appointment was later confirmed. 0strada later appointed "emaisip to the same office and appointed Bacal to the post of

POLITICAL LAW MENDOZA DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 Carrie Bee, Aldrich, Cayo, She

1egional "irector, *ublic Attorney2s )ffice, a post which re5uires the ran' of %0$) ???. Bacal filed a petition for 3&o 4arra%to 5uestioning her replacement the %ourt of Appeals held that Bacal was lawfully entitled to the position in dispute. ISS+E; Whether the transfer of an appointment of a civil servant to a position for which he or she is not 5ualified can be considered permanent. -ELD: No, it is settled that a permanent appointment can be issued only to a person who meets all the re5uirements for the position to which he is being appointed, including the appropriate eligibility prescribed. Bacal2s appointment to an office re5uiring a higher ran' can be considered only to be in acting capacity and not permanent. &ence, "emaisip2s appointment is valid. %ntiveros v. C G.R. No. 145401. *ay ", 2001 ,ACTS: "uring the subsistence of the *rovisional %onstitution, )ntiveros was dismissed from the civil service for inefficiency, incompetence, and unauthorized absences. &is appeal with the %$% was deniedE the ruling stating that urisdiction over the appeal was vested in the 1eview %ommittee created under 0)39. ISS+E; Whether the %$% had urisdiction over the appeal from the dismissal. -ELD; No. #he *rovisional %onstitution provided for the summary nature of dismissal re5uired by post7revolutionary government reorganization. 0)39 was promulgated to limit the broad authority given to administrative agencies pursuant to the *rovisional %onstitution. Because of the prevailing circumstances, ordinary %ivil $ervice rules and procedures were inapplicable.
Pre#e)t #e S%s/e)s o) Not a Pe)a"ty

lon'o v. Capulong. G.R. No. 110590. *ay 10, 1995. ,ACTS; Ha ardo was preventively suspended from her post at the *ag7ibig Hund Houndation. #he decision for her preventive suspension was based on a recommendation by *ag7ibig2s legal department, which found a prima facie case after investigating the circumstances surrounding a letter sent to the %0) of *ag7ibig by a contractor complaining of improper conduct on Ha ardo2s part. Ha ardo claims she was deprived of due process for being suspended on the basis of an unverified letter and not being allowed to give her side. -ELD: ?t is now settled that the preventive suspension of a civil service employee or officer can be ordered even without a hearing because such suspension is not a penalty but only a preliminary step in an administrative investigation. #he purpose is to prevent the accused from using his position or office to influence prospective witnesses or tamper with the records which may be vital in the prosecution of the case against him.
PCGG

Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganba(an G.R. No. 11590#. September 29, 1994. ,ACTS; #he *%CC, acting upon an order of the *resident, through the (inister of !ustice, conducted an in5uiry similar to a preliminary investigation to determine whether to proceed with an unexplained wealth case against a former mayor. #he $andiganbayan, acting on a motion by the respondents, dismissed the case because there was no allegation that the unexplained wealth was accumulated by reason of a close association with (arcos or his cronies. ISS+E; Whether the power of the *%CC to conduct investigations is limited only to cases where the ill7gotten wealth was obtained by (arcos or through association with him or his relatives. -ELD; No. #he law is clear @0xecutive )rder No. 3 dated Hebruary :B, 3,B.A. #he *%CC is charged with the tas' of assisting the *resident in the recovery of ill7gotten wealth accumulated; @3A by or in connection with (arcos and @:A any other cases of graft and corruption as the president may assign to it.

POLITICAL LAW MENDOZA DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 Carrie Bee, Aldrich, Cayo, She

NATIONAL ECONOM4 AND PATRIMON4 T 01er L &e)se A!ree0e)ts

C2M ,imber Corp. v. ngel C. lcala et. al G.R. No. 111088 $&%e 1!, 199" ,ACTS: #>A No. 38. was issued to petitioner %M( in 3,9:. ?n 3,B/, #>A No. 38. was cancelled because of a presidential directive imposing a log ban. ?n 3,B-, #>A /.8 covering the same area was issued to H>"%. ?n 3,B., #>A No. /.8 was cancelled because of violation by H>"% of its terms. 4pon learning of this cancellation, *etitioner sought the revalidation of #>A No. 38.. $ecretary Hactoran !r. ruled that #>A No. 38. was of no force and effect. -ELD: #here is no merit in petitioner2s contention that the cancellation of the #>A impaired contractual obligations. A #>A is a mere privilege granted by the $tate and does not vest in the grantee a permanent or irrevocable right to the concession area. #>As are not contracts and may therefore be amended, modified, replaced or rescinded by the %hief 0xecutive when national interests so re5uire.
ED+CATION A&ade0 & freedo0 of 5 )st t%t o)s of h !her "ear) )!6

1P "oard of Regents v. Court of ppeals G.R. No. 1!4#25 A&'&(t !1, 1999 ,ACTS: After conducting several investigations, the 4* Board of 1egents found that private respondent had committed plagiarism in her dissertation. #he Board withdrew her doctroral degree. *rivate respondent filed a petition for mandamus to compel 4* to restore her degree. -ELD: #he writ of mandamus is not available to restrain 4* from the exercise of its academic freedom. Where it is shown that the conferment of an honor or distinction was obtained through fraud, a university has the right to revo'e or withdraw the honor or distinction it has thus conferred. *rivate respondent was not denied due process because she was given notice and the chance to be heard in the investigations conducted by the Board.

ADMINISTRATI'E LAW
REMO'AL O, LICENSE RE7+IREMENT

ssn. of Phil. Coconut Desiccators v. Phil. Coconut G.R. No. 11052# 5ebr&ary 10, 1998

uthorit(

,ACTS: #he *hil. %oconut Authority @*%AA issued a resolution in which it declared that it would no longer re5uire those wishing to engage in coconut processing to apply for a license or permit. *ursuant to the resolution, the *%A would be limited to monitoring the volumes of production and 5uality standards of the processors. -ELD: #he resolution is null and void. ?t is an abdication of the power granted by the 1evised %oconut %ode to the *%A to formulate and adopt a general program of development for the coconut industry in a regulatory context. Any change in policy must be made by the legislative department of the government. #he regulatory system has been set up by law, and it is beyond the power of an administrative agency to dismantle it.
,I8ING O, ,EES 3 S+BORDINATE LEGISLATION

Phil. Interisland Shipping ssn. of the Phil et al v. Court of ppeals G.R. No(. 100481, 10!"1#)1" 6 10""20 $a%&ary 22, 199" ,ACTS: *res. (arcos issued 0) 38BB, increasing the rates of pilotage fees fixed by the *hil. *orts Authority @**AA. #he **A refused to enforce the 0) and fixed lower pilotage fees. #he **A later issued an )rder allowing the contracting parties to agree upon their rates. *etitioners contend that 0) 38BB was merely an administrative issuance, which could be superseded by an

POLITICAL LAW MENDOZA DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 Carrie Bee, Aldrich, Cayo, She

order of the **A. #hey argue that to consider 0)38BB a statute would deprive the **A of its power under its charter to fix pilotage rates. -ELD: #he orders issued by the **A were in the nature of subordinate legislation, and as such, these could only be amended or revised by law. Although the power to fix rates for pilotage had been delegated to the **A, it became necessary to rationalize the rates fixed by it through the imposition of uniform rates. #hat is what the *resident did in promulgating 0) 38BB. As the *resident could delegate the rate ma'ing power to the **A, so could he exercise it in specific instances without thereby withdrawing the power vested by the charter of the **A.
S+,,ICIENT STANDARD TEST

Chiongbian v. %rbos. G.R. No. 9#"54. $&%e 22, 1995. ,ACTS: *etitioners challenged the power of the *resident to merge, by administrative determination, the remaining regions after the establishment of the Autonomous 1egion. #he power, which was granted by law, is challenged as being a derogation of legislative power and for not having a sufficient standard. ISS+E; Whether the provision granting the *resident the power to merge regions, by administrative determination, is valid. -ELD: =es. %ongress did not grant the *resident power to merge or reorganize for political representation or territorial subdivision, but only for purposes of administration, which has been traditionally within the scope of the executive department. #here is also a sufficient standard imposed by %ongress for the exercise of the power; Ito promote simplicity, economy and efficiency in the government to enable it to pursue programs consistent with national goals for accelerated social and economic development and to improve the service in the transaction of the public business.K
ABOLIS-MENT O, ORGANIZATION

Isabelo Crisostomo v. C , et al G.R. No. 10#29# $&ly 5, 199# ,ACTS: *etitioner was appointed *resident of the *hilippine %ollege of %ommerce @*%%A. $everal administrative and criminal complaints were filed against him, and he was preventively suspended. *ending resolution of the cases, *res. (arcos issued *" 3/-3 converting the *%% into a *olytechnic 4niversity. When all of the charges were dismissed, *etitioner sought reinstatement and payment of his salaries and benefits during the period of suspension. -ELD: ?t is incorrect to say that *etitioner cannot be reinstated because the *%% had been abolished by *"3/-3. *"3/-3 did not abolish the *%% because this intent was not explicitly stated. When the purpose of the law is to abolish an organization and to replace it with another one, the lawma'ing authority must explicitly say so. &owever, *etitioner cannot be reinstated because *" 3-/9 fixes the term of office of presidents of state universities and colleges at six years, renewable for another six years, and authorizes the *resident of the *hilippines to terminate the terms of incumbents who were not reappointed. *etitioner is entitled only to payment of his salaries during the period of suspension.
E8-A+STION O, ADMINISTRATI'E REMEDIES

D( v. Court of ppeals G.R. No. 12158" *arch 9, 1999 ,ACTS: #he "0N1 seized and forfeited two vehicles and pieces of illegally cut lumber. #wo months after the forfeiture, petitioner filed a suit for replevin in the 1#%. #he 1#% issued the writ. -ELD: #he replevin suit was premature. Before a party may be allowed to see' the intervention of the court, he must first exhaust available administrative remedies. ?n this case, the forfeited truc's and lumber were under the custody of the "0N1, and all actions see'ing to recover possession should first be directed to that agency.

POLITICAL LAW MENDOZA DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 Carrie Bee, Aldrich, Cayo, She WEIG-T O, ADMINISTRATI'E DECISIONS

Misamis %riental ssociation of Coco ,raders, Inc. v. "IR G.R. No. 108524. No-ember 10, 1994 ,ACTS: *rior to the interpretative rule of <A# 1uling 3,87,8, copra was classified under the National ?nternal 1evenue %ode as an agricultural food product and, therefore, exempt from <A# at all stages of production or distribution. &owever, the said ruling expressly declared copra to be an agricultural non7food product which is exempt from <A# only if the primary producer ma'es the sale. ISS+E: Whether the reclassification of copra is valid. -ELD: =es. As the government agency charged with the enforcement of the law, the opinion of the %ommissioner of ?nternal 1evenue, in the absence of any showing that it is plainly wrong, is entitled to great weight. Also, contrary to the petitioners2 claim, unli'e legislative rules, there is no need for notice and hearing as regards interpretative rules.
PREMAT+RIT4 O, IN$+NCTION ORDERS

Republic of the Philippines v. C and $MR% G.R. No. 128010. 5ebr&ary 28, 2000 ,ACTS: 01() obtained a :+7year lease from the government @"0N1A, the contract stipulating that the property shall not be sub7leased. 4pon receipt of a report that 0(1) had leased a portion of the property to a third party, the "0N1 in a resolution recommended in5uiry into the matter notice of such resolution given to 0(1). 0(1) applied for and obtained a petition for declaratory relief, in unction, and damages. ISS+E: Whether the court was correct in granting 0(1)2s petition. -ELD: No. #here can be no in unction as there is no threat to 0(1)2s rights. What appears to be a petition for declaratory relief is actually one for prohibition, see'ing to prevent cancellation of the agreement. &owever, as such, the petition is premature. #here had not even been an investigation only a recommendation for one to be conducted. $&ri(dictio%al i((&e; #he $tate also raised the issue that the court issued the in unctionDprohibition in violation of the law that no court shall issue an in unction against administrative acts or controversies which involve facts or exercise of discretion in technical cases this was not discussed by the $% for being not ripe for determination, it being decided that the in unction was premature.

ELECTION LAW
POWER O, COMELEC TO PROSEC+TE ELECTION O,,ENSES

C%M$+$C v. +oren'o R. Silva, et al G.R. No 12941" 5ebr&ary 10, 1998 ,ACTS: #he %)(0>0% charged private respondents with election offenses. 1espondents filed a oint I)mnibus (otion for 0xamination of 0vidence to "etermine the 0xistence of *robable %auseE $uspension of ?ssuance of Warrant of ArrestE and "ismissal of the %ases.K #he $tate *rosecutor who had been designated by the %)(0>0% to prosecute the cases filed a comment oining in the private respondents2 re5uest. #he #rial %ourt dismissed the cases. #he %)(0>0% appealed to the %ourt of Appeals but was denied on the ground that the *rivate *rosecutor had earlier ta'en a contrary stand against the %)(0>0%. -ELD: #he authority to decide whether or not to appeal the dismissal belongs to the %)(0>0%. #he %onstitution empowers the %)(0>0% to prosecute election offenses and to conduct preliminary investigations in these cases in order to help the !udge determine probable cause and to file an information in court. #his power is exclusive with %)(0>0%. &aving merely been deputized by the %)(0>0%, the $tate *rosecutor acted beyond his power when he left the determination of probable cause to the courts and agreed to the dismissal of the cases.

38

POLITICAL LAW MENDOZA DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 Carrie Bee, Aldrich, Cayo, She RE7+IREMENT O, D+E PROCESS

ngelia v. C%M$+$C G.R. No. 1!54#8. *ay !1, 2000 ,ACTS; #an received four votes less than Angelia, denying him a slot in the $angguniang Bayan. &e filed a petition to annul the proclamation of Angelia, attaching a copy of the election returns showing a miscount. #he %)(0>0% annulled the proclamation of Angelia and, based on a verification of the results, proclaimed #an. Angelia now 5uestions the actions of the %)(0>0% for being done without notice and hearing. ISS+E; Whether the %)(0>0%2s annulment of the proclamation and the subse5uent proclamation of another candidate violated due process. -ELD; =es. #he %)(0>0% rules of procedure dictate that the proper procedure was to reconvene and, after notice and hearing to the parties, to effect the necessary corrections on the certificate of canvass and proclaim the winning candidate or candidates on the basis thereof.

NECESSIT4 O, MOTION ,OR RECONSIDERATION

)uiles 1. Re(es v. R,C of %riental Mindoro G.R. No. 10888# *ay 5, 1995 ,ACTS: #he 1#% annulled *etitioner2s proclamation as councilor. *etitioner appealed to the %)(0>0%. #he %)(0>0%Gs Hirst "ivision dismissed the appeal on the ground that he had failed to pay the appeal fee within the prescribed period. *etitioner went to the $upreme %ourt on certiorari. -ELD: )nly decisions of the %)(0>0% en banc may be brought to the $upreme %ourt on certiorari. A basic condition for this action is that the petitioner must first file a motion for reconsideration. *etitioner2s failure to do so is fatal to this action. )n the merits, the %)(0>0% correctly ruled that the appeal fee must be paid within the period to perfect the appeal.
$+RISDICTION O, -RET

Pere' v. C%M$+$C G.R. No. 1!!944 ctober 28, 1999 ,ACTS: *etitioner filed in the %)(0>0% a petition for the dis5ualification of private respondent as a candidate for the &ouse of 1epresentatives on the ground that he had not been a resident of the district for at least one year immediately before the day of the elections. #he %)(0>0% dismissed the petition. *rivate respondent was subse5uently elected, proclaimed, and sworn in office. *etitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the %)(0>0% decision, which was denied. -ELD: #he %)(0>0% has no more urisdiction over the case since private respondent had already been proclaimed. ?t is the &10# that has exclusive original urisdiction over the petition for the declaration of private respondent2s ineligibility. )n the merits, the fact that a person was previously registered as a voter in one district is not proof that he is not domiciled in another district.
$+RISDICTION O'ER S9 ELECTIONS

Rafael M.

lunan III, et al v. Robert Mirasol, et al G.R. No. 108!99 $&ly !1, 199"

,ACTS: #he %)(0>0% issued a resolution providing guidelines for the holding of the $N elections. #he $N guidelines placed the elections under the direct control and supervision of the "?>C. #he "?>C $ecretary issued a resolution exempting the %ity of (anila from holding the $N, in accordance with the >ocal Covernment %ode, which provides that where Nabataang Barangay elections were previously held, these would ta'e the place of the first $N elections. *rivate respondents argue that the "?>C $ecretary had no power to amend the resolutions of the %)(0>0%, which call for the conduct of the $N elections.

33

POLITICAL LAW MENDOZA DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 Carrie Bee, Aldrich, Cayo, She

-ELD: #he $N elections are under the direct supervision of the "?>C and not of the %)(0>0%. #his does not contravene the constitutional provision that the %)(0>0% shall have the power to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election. #he authority of the "?>C secretary to supervise the conduct of $N elections includes the authority to determine which barangay would not be included in the 3,,: elections. ?n doing this, the "?>C $ecretary acts merely as the agent of the legislative department. #here was no undue delegation of legislative power but only of the discretion as to the execution of a law.
S+PPLETOR4 E,,ECT O, R+LES O, CO+RT ON ELECTION CASES

&estor C. +im v. C%M$+$C et al G.R. No. 129040 No-ember 1", 199" ,ACTS: A losing candidate filed an election protest against petitioner. *etitioner filed a counterprotest. #he trial court held that the counterprotest was filed out of time. *etitioner argues that the 1ules of %ourt, rather than those of the %)(0>0%, govern the periods for pleading in election contests cognizable by the 1egional #rial %ourts. -ELD: #he %)(0>0% has the power to prescribe the procedure for election contests filed in the 1#%s and (#%s. #he timeliness of petitionerGs protest must therefore be determined in accordance with the rules of the %)(0>0%. #he provisions of the 1ules of %ourt are suppletory to the provisions of the 0lection >aw. &ence a motion for extension of time to file answer to the election protest should be filed before the expiration of the five7day reglementary period to answer, otherwise a general denial shall be deemed to have been entered against the protestee.
PRE2PROCLAMATION CONTRO'ERSIES 3 ELECTION PROTESTS

&icolas Castroma(or v. Commission on $lections et al G.R. No. 120428 No-ember 2!, 1995 ,ACTS: *etitioner was proclaimed the eighth member of the $angguniang Bayan. #he following day, the chair of the (unicipal Board of %anvassers discovered that the candidate in ninth place actually had more votes than petitioner. #he (B% %hair as'ed the %)(0>0% for permission to reconvene to correct the error. #he %)(0>0% issued a resolution directing the (B% to reconvene to annul the proclamation of petitioner and to proclaim the other candidate. *etitioner complains that the %)(0>0% en banc issued the resolution in 5uestion without notice and hearing, solely on the basis of a letter of the (B%. -ELD: What the %)(0>0% contemplated was not the outright nullification of petitioner2s proclamation but a hearing before the (B% after which the proclamation of petitioner may be set aside, if proper. #hese proceedings before the (B% should be summary and may be appealed to the %)(0>0% en banc. #here is no need to file an election protest because where a proclamation is null and void, the proclaimed candidateGs assumption of office cannot deprive the %)(0>0% of the power to annul the proclamation. Cipriano ". Pe*aflorida et al v. C%M$+$C et al G.R. No. 12201! *arch 2#, 199" ,ACTS: *etitioners were candidates for mayor and vice mayor in the (ay 3,,+ elections. #hey sought a nullification of the canvass on the ground that the board of canvassers had been illegally constituted and the canvass irregularly conducted. #he Board of %anvassers did not act on the petition, so the petitioners appealed with the %)(0>0%. A month later, the case was declared terminated in an )mnibus 1esolution of the %)(0>0% in view of the beginning of the term of office of elective officials the next day. *etitioners claim that the %)(0>0% abused its discretion when it deliberately sat on the petition to render it moot and academic. -ELD: #he %)(0>0% issued the resolution not to render moot and academic pending pre7 proclamation contests but to prevent many offices from having no incumbents at the beginning of the term of office. *etitioners have not shown that the %)(0>0% deliberately sat on their protest. ?f the %)(0>0% had in fact done so, petitioners should have filed for mandamus to compel it to resolve the case on time. At any rate, they can file an election protest and prove their claim in the appropriate forum. .ose C. Ramire' v. C%M$+$C, et al G.R. No. 12201!, *arch 2#, 199"

3:

POLITICAL LAW MENDOZA DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 Carrie Bee, Aldrich, Cayo, She

,ACTS: *etitioner was proclaimed winner in the 3,,+ election for vice mayor by the (unicipal Board of %anvassers @(B%A. *rivate respondent filed in the %)(0>0% a petition for the correction of manifest errors in the addition of his votes in the $tatement of <otes. #he %)(0>0% en banc issued : resolutions directing the (B% to reconvene and recompute the votes in the $tatement of <otes. *etitioner contends that @3A the %)(0>0% acted without urisdiction because it resolved the case without it first having been acted upon by one of its divisions, and @:A the (B% had already made a correction of the manifest errors in the $tatement of <otes in its certification, and it was grave abuse of discretion for the %)(0>0% to order a re7computation of votes. -ELD: @3A #he 1ules of the %)(0>0% expressly provides that pre7proclamation controversies involving manifest errors in the tabulation or tallying of the results may be filed directly with the %)(0>0%. @:A %orrections should be made either by inserting the corrections in the $tatement of <otes prepared and submitted by the (B% or by preparing an entirely new $tatement of <otes. (oreover, these corrections should be based on the election returns, not on the %ertificates of <otes. ?n this case, what the %)(0>0% should have ordered the (B% to do was not merely to recompute the number of votes for the parties, but to revise the $tatement of <otes using the election returns for this purpose. mer "alindong v. C%M$+$C, et al G.R. No. 124041 A&'&(t 9, 199# ,ACTS: *etitioner, losing candidate for mayor, filed in the %)(0>0% a *etition to $uspend andDor Annul *roclamation of the winning candidate on the ground that one polling place had been transferred without prior notice and hearing, resulting in the failure of ./ voters to cast there votes. *etitioner also prayed for a technical examination of the signatures and thumbmar's in the list of voters and voters2 affidavits from that precinct. -ELD: #he mere fact that the transfer of polling place was not made in accordance with the law does not warrant a declaration of failure of election and the annulment of the proclamation of the winning candidate, unless the number of uncast votes will affect the result of the election. ?n this case, since the ./ votes uncast will not materially affect the result of the election, there should be no declaration of failure of election. A technical examination in a pre7proclamation controversy is allowed only if it is manifestly obvious that the election returns are manufactured, and not when, as in this case, there is no obvious badge of fraud. *etitionerGs remedy is to raise his issues in an election protest before the 1#%. Dagloc v. C%M$+$C G.R. No. 1!89#9 2ecember 1", 1999 ,ACTS: *rivate respondent filed a *0#?#?)N #) "0%>A10 A HA?>410 )H 0>0%#?)N AN"D)1 ANN4> #&0 0>0%#?)N 10$4>#$. $everal wee's later, private respondent also filed an election protest. *etitioner sought the dismissal of the election protest on the ground that it was filed more than 38 days from the date of proclamation. -ELD: #he election protest was filed out of time. #he 0lection %ode provides that the filing of a pre7proclamation controversy suspends the running of the reglementary period for filing an election protest. &owever, the earlier petition to declare a failure of election filed by private respondent was not in the nature of a pre7proclamation controversy. #herefore, it did not suspend the running of the period for filing the election protest.
DIS7+ALI,ICATION O, WINNING CANDIDATE

Renato 1. Re(es v. Commission on $lections, et al G.R. No. 120905 *arch ", 199# ,ACTS: *etitioner 1eyes obtained the most number of votes but was dis5ualified as candidate for mayor. #he second placer claims that he should be proclaimed winner. -ELD: #he candidate who obtains the second highest number of votes may not be proclaimed winner in case the winning candidate is dis5ualified.

3/

POLITICAL LAW MENDOZA DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 Carrie Bee, Aldrich, Cayo, She

SP+RIO+S BALLOTS

"en3amin R. $rni v. Commission on $lections, et al G.R. No. 11#24# April 2", 1995 ,ACTS: After conducting an investigation in connection with an election protest, #he Hirst "ivision of the %)(0>0% invalidated several votes in favor of petitioner and nullified his proclamation. *etitioner claims that there should have been a technical examination of the ballots and that he was denied due process when he was not allowed to participate in the investigation to verify the signatures of the personnel who conducted the examination of ballots. -ELD: #he %ommission itself can ma'e the determination of whether the ballots are spurious without the need of calling handwriting experts. *etitioner was not denied due process when he was not allowed to participate in the investigation of signatures of the personnel who examined the ballots. #his was not part of the decision7ma'ing process in which *etitioner was entitled to participate but an internal procedure designed to ascertain the integrity of persons under the supervision and control of the %)(0>0%.
DE,ECTS IN ELECTION RET+RN

Patora( v. C%M$+$C. G.R. No. 12082!. ctober 24, 1995. ,ACTS: #here were discrepancies between the ItarasK and the written figures in 0lection 1eturn IA.K 0lection 1eturn IB,K on the other hand, was incomplete in the sense that it lac'ed data as to provincial and congressional candidates. #he %)(0>0% ordered the exclusion of both 0lection 1eturns A and B. ISS+E: Whether the %)(0>0% was correct in ordering the exclusion of the two election returns. -ELD: A was properly excluded, B was not. &owever, pursuant to the 0lectoral 1eforms >aw of 3,B9, the %)(0>0% should have used the %ertificate of <otes for 0lection 1eturn A or ordered a recount of the ballots in order to avoid disenfranchisement of the voters. As to 0lection 1eturn B, the exclusion was erroneous because the defect was material. #he )mnibus 0lection %ode provides that in case of material defects, the board of election inspectors should complete the necessary data in the election returns.
PERIOD TO ,ORM RECALL ASSEMBL4

Claudio v. C%M$+$C G.R. No. 1405#0. *ay 4, 2000 ,ACTS: Within the one7year period after *asay %ity (ayor %laudio assumed office, several barangay chairs convened a *reparatory 1ecall Assembly and discussed the possibility of filing a petition for recall against him. )ne day after the one7year period of his assumption to office elapsed, the petition was filed. %laudio 5uestions the validity of the petition alleging that the *1A convened prior to the expiration of the one7year statutory prohibition. %laudio alleges that there is a prohibition that no recall shall be conducted within one year from a regularDlocal election where local election includes the entire election period. ISS+E: Whether the one7year post7assumption prohibition includes the convening of the *1A, and whether the term of the one7year pre7election prohibition includes the entire election period. -ELD: No to both. As long as the election is held outside the one7year period, the preliminary proceedings to initiate a recall can be held even before the end of the first year in office of a local official. #he law is unambiguous in providing that no recall shall ta'e place within one year immediately preceding a regular local election. &ad %ongress intended this limitation to refer to the campaign period, which period is defined in the )mnibus 0lection %ode, it could have expressly said so.

3-

POLITICAL LAW MENDOZA DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 Carrie Bee, Aldrich, Cayo, She TRANS,ER O, EMPLO4EES D+RING ELECTION PERIOD

Regalado v. Court of ppeals G.R. No. 1159#2. 5ebr&ary 15, 2000 ,ACTS; 1egalado was appointed as )?%7(ayor, since the incumbent mayor decided to run in the upcoming elections where 1egalado2s brother was also a candidate. Hour days after 1egalado2s brother won, and still within the election period, 1egalado, the )?%7(ayor, effected the transfer of a certain Barba from her post as a permanent Nursing Attendant in the office of the mayor to a very remote barangay, without %)(0>0% clearance. ISS+E: Whether )?%7(ayor 1egalado2s act of transferring Barba was legal. -ELD: No. 4nder the )mnibus 0lection %ode, it is a prohibited act for any public official to transfer any officer or civil service employee within the election period except upon prior approval of the %)(0>0%.

P+BLIC O,,ICERS
'ALIDIT4 O, DECISION

!irginia Manalo v. +uisito Re(es et al G.R. No. 11"#18 *arch 29, 199# ,ACTS: #he $anggunian *anlalawigan found the (ayor guilty of the charges in an administrative complaint. #his was embodied in a IdecisionK signed by only one member. $ubse5uently, the $anggunian ac5uitted the (ayor in a "ecision signed by all members who voted. *etitioner contends that the $anggunian had no power to render another decision since the first decision was already final and executory. -ELD: #he first decision was not a decision because it did not contain the signatures of the members who voted. ?n order to render a valid decision in administrative cases involving elective local officials, the decision of the $anggunian must be in writing stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the reasons for such decision. ?t was the second decision, which was signed by all of the members, that was properly a decision. ,an v. %ffice of the %mbudsman, et al G.R. No. 114895 September 10, 1998 ,ACTS: *etitioner Annie #an tried to register her truc' with the >#). *rior to this, a certain Angel #an re5uested the )?% of the >#) branch to defer the registration of the truc' because it was mortgaged by Annie #an to him. #he )?% advised Annie #an to settle her accounts with Angel #an before registering the vehicle. Annie #an filed a complaint against the )?% for violation of the Anti7Craft and %orrupt *ractices Act for unduly delaying the registration of the vehicle. -ELD: #he )?% did not violate the Anti7Craft and %orrupt *ractices Act. &e acted properly in advising Annie #an to settle the matter with Angel #an first. ?f he had allowed the registration of the vehicle, he would have instead caused undue in ury to Angel #an or given material advantage to Annie #an since the petitioner was apparently orchestrating a scheme to defraud her creditor.
T-REE2TERM LIMIT

"or3a .r. v. C%M$+$C, et al G.R. No. 1!!495 September !, 1998 ,ACTS: "uring %apco2s term as vice7mayor, he became mayor by operation of law upon the death of the incumbent mayor. &e was later elected mayor for two consecutive terms. &e ran for re7election for the third time. *etitioner sought %apco2s dis5ualification on the ground that he had already served for three consecutive terms. -ELD: #he three7term limit on local elective officials applies only to those terms of office to which one may have been elected. ?t does not apply to those terms that are served by automatic succession. &ence, %apco can run for re7elections for the third time.

3+

POLITICAL LAW MENDOZA DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 Carrie Bee, Aldrich, Cayo, She

APPOINTMENT IN CASE O, 'ACANC4

Rodolfo 0ari*as et al v. ngelo M. "arba, et al G.R. No. 11#"#! April 19, 199# ,ACTS: A member of the $angguniang Bayan resigned. #o fill the vacancy, the (ayor recommended to the Covernor the appointment of *alafox. #he $angguniang Bayan made the same recommendation addressed to the mayor. )n the other hand, the $angguniang *anlalawigan recommended Nacino to the Covernor. #he Covernor appointed Nacino. )n the same day, the (ayor appointed *alafox. #he Covernor and Nacino filed a petition for 3&o 4arra%to against *alafox. -ELD: ?n case the permanent vacancy is caused by a member of the $angguniang Bayan who does not belong to any political party, the governor shall, upon recommendation of the $angguniang Bayan, appoint a 5ualified person to fill the vacancy. #he recommendation by the $angguniang Bayan is a condition sine 5ua non for the validity of the appointment. ?n this case, neither of the two nominations complied with these re5uirements. #he petition for 5uo warranto should thus be dismissed.

P+BLIC CORPORATIONS
,ORMATION O, M+NICIPALITIES

Municipalit( of .imene' v. 4on. !icente ,. "a' .r., et al G.R. No. 105"4# 2ecember 2, 1995 ,ACTS: #he (unicipality of $inacaban was created by 0) :+B of *resident Ouirino. $inacaban laid claim to certain barangays, based on the technical description of its territory in 0) :+B. #he (unicipality of !imenez asserted urisdiction over these areas based on a 1esolution of the *rovincial Board, fixing the common boundary of the municipalities. #he #rial %ourt ordered the conduct of a relocation survey. !imenez 5uestions @3A whether $inacaban, having been created by an 0), has legal personalityE and @:A whether it is the boundary provided for in 0) :+B or that adopted by the *rovincial Board that should govern. -ELD: @3A $inacaban had at least de 7acto legal personality because its legal existence had been recognized and ac5uiesced publicly and officially. With the effectivity of the >ocal Covernment %ode, it ac5uired de 8&re personality because the >C% provides that municipal districts organized pursuant to presidential issuances or 0)s at the time of the effectivity of the >C% shall be considered as regular municipalities. #here is no need to conform with the plebiscite re5uirement in the creation of new municipalities since $inacaban was created before the effectivity of the 3,B9 %onstitution. @:A #he technical description containing the metes and bounds of the territory of a municipality is controlling. #hus, the 1#% correctly ordered a relocation survey as the means of determining the boundaries of the municipality.
-EARINGS: P+BLICATION: POSTING O, ORDINANCES

0iguerres v. Court of ppeals G.R. No. 1191"2 *arch 25, 1999 ,ACTS: #he %ity of (andaluyong promulgated several ordinances revising the schedule of fair mar'et values of real property in the city and the assessment levels applicable thereto. *etitioner 5uestions the validity of the ordinances on the ground that they were allegedly adopted without public hearing and prior publication or posting. -ELD: *ublic hearings are re5uired before the enactment of an ordinance imposing real property taxes. >i'ewise, the publication or posting of such ordinance and of the proposed schedule of fair mar'et values of real property is re5uired. &owever, petitioner has not presented evidence to show non7compliance with these re5uirements and has therefore failed to rebut the presumption of validity in favor of the ordinances.

3.

POLITICAL LAW MENDOZA DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 Carrie Bee, Aldrich, Cayo, She CREATION O, OT-ER BARANGA4 POSITIONS

Cesar G. !iola v. Rafael lunan III, et al G.R. No. 115844 A&'&(t 15, 199" ,ACTS: *etitioner challenges the validity of Art. ???, 6637: of the 1evised ?mplementing 1ules and Cuidelines for the Ceneral 0lections of the >iga ng mga Barangay )fficers, which provides for the election of first, second and third vice presidents and for auditors for the National >iga ng mga Barangay and its chapters. *etitioner argues that these positions are in excess of those provided in the >ocal Covernment %ode. -ELD: #he rules are valid. #he >ocal Covernment %ode authorizes the board of directors to Lcreate such other positions as it may deem necessary for the management of the chapter.K #his is a valid delegation of power by %ongress with a fairly intelligible standard.

39