ELPIDIO SORIANO VS RUBEN LISTA ET AL

G.R. NO. 153381, MARCH 24,1003

Facts
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo appointed or promoted the public
respondents to different positions in the Philippine Coast Guards (PCG) and their
subsequent assumption of office without confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments.
Despite the lack of confirmation by the Commission on Appointments,
respondents assumed their duties and functions.
Soriano assails that the said appointments precisely because of the failure
undergo the confirmation process by ca. Hence, they should be prohibited from
discharging their duties and functions. Likewise, the petitioners avers the disbursement
of the salaries and emoluments of the said Philippine Coast Guard officers.
Issue
Whether or not the permanent appointments of the respondents made by
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo are legal and constitutional.

Ruling
The history of Philippine Coast Guards would show that it used to be
administered and maintained by the Philippine Navy as a separate unit. It was then
placed under the direct supervision and control of the Secretary of National Defense. It
was then integrated in the Armed Forces of the Philippines as a major subordinate unit.
However, in March 1998 president Fidel Ramos issued an Executive Order No. 475
transferring the Philippine Coast Guards from Department of National Defense to the
Office of the President. He later transferred the Philippine Coast Guard from the Office
of the President to the Department of Trade and Communication.
Because Philippine Coast Guard has been transferred to the Department of
Trade and Communication and is no longer part of the Philippine Navy or Armed Forces
of the Philippines, the promotions and appointments do not require the confirmation of
the Commission on Appointments. The 1987 Constitution; Article 7 Sections 16 requires
that the confirmation of Commission on Appointments is only applicable to the Officers
of the Armed Forces from the rank colonel or naval captain. The enumeration in the
constitution is exclusive. The clause "officers of the armed forces from the rank of
colonel or naval captain" refers to military officers alone
 FEDERICO SANDOVAL VS COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND CANUTO ORETA

G.R. NO.133842. January 26, 2000]

Facts
Sandoval and Oreta were candidates for the congressional seat for the Malabon-
Navotas legislative district during the elections held on May 11, 1998. After canvassing
the municipal certificates of canvass, the district board of canvassers proclaimed
Sandoval the duly elected congressman. Sandoval took his oath of office on the same
day. Oreta filed with the Comelec a petition, which sought the annulment of Sandoval’s
proclamation. He alleged that there was a verbal order from the Comelec Chairman to
suspend the canvass and proclamation of the winning candidate, but the district board of
canvassers proceeded with the canvass and proclamation despite the said verbal order.
He also alleged that there was non-inclusion of 19 election returns in the canvass, which
would result in an incomplete canvass of the election returns. The Comelec En Banc
issued an order setting aside the proclamation of petitioner and ruled the proclamation as
void. Hence, this petition for certiorari seeking the annulment and reversal of the Comelec
order.

Issue

Whether or not the Comelec’s order to set aside the petitioner’s proclamation
was invalid.

Ruling
The Court ruled that the order to set aside the proclamation order of
petitioner is invalid for having been rendered without due process of law. Procedural
due process prior notice and hearing. Then after the hearing, it is also necessary that
the tribunal show substantial evidence to support its ruling. In other words, due process
requires that the party to be given an opportunity adduce his evidence to support his
side of the case and that evidence should be considered in the adjudication case. The
facts show that the Comelec to set aside the proclamation of the petitioner without
benefit prior of prior notice and hearing and it rendered the questioned order based on
the private respondent’s allegations.

Due process in proceedings before the Comelec is exercising quasi-judicial

functions. The private respondent argues that the Comelec is authorized to annul an
illegal proclamation without notice and hearing.
 "Sec. 242. Commission's exclusive jurisdiction of all pre-
proclamation controversies.-- The Commission shall have exclusive
jurisdiction of all pre-proclamation controversies. It may motu proprio or
upon written petition, and after due notice and hearing, order the partial
or total suspension of the proclamation of any candidate-elect or annul
partially or totally any proclamation, if one has been made, as the
evidence shall warrant in accordance with the succeeding sections."

The phrase "motu proprio" does not refer to the annulment of proclamation but to
the manner of initiating the proceedings to annul a proclamation made by the board of
canvassers. The law provides two ways by which annulment proceedings may be
initiated. It may be at the own initiative of the comelec (motu proprio) or by written
petition. In either case, notice and hearing is required. This is clear from the language of
the law.

Comelec submits that procedural due process need not be in this case because
it was merely exercising its administrative power to review, revise and reverse the
actions of the board of canvassers. Therefore, acting as a quasi-judicial tribunal, cannot
ignore the requirements of procedural due process in resolving the petitions filed by
private respondent.