consti1 cases topic reviewer (art. 8, sec. 4-8)

Upload: kristel-descallar

Post on 10-Oct-2015

32 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

DESCRIPTION

ADSSAF

TRANSCRIPT

SECTION 4

FORTICH VS CORONA- resolution of SC, wherein they voted 2-2 on separate motions for reconsideration- CASES are decided vs MATTERS are resolved

PEOPLE VS DY- SC may sit en banc or in divisions of 3, 5 or 7

PEOPLE VS EBIO- appellant Gerry Ebio convicted of qualified rape and sentenced of death penalty- Decision signed by 7 justices only- QUORUM of SC en banc

SECTION 5

MARBURY VS MADISON- JUDICIAL REVIEW: courts duty to determine which laws violate the Constitution, and thus, void

ANGARA VS ELECTORAL COMMISSION- National Assembly vs Electoral Commissions conflicting resolutions (powers/functions) as to the election of Angara- courts obligation to interpret Constitutional boundaries between these 2 government bodies- SC as final arbiter

TOLENTINO VS SECRETARY OF FINANCE- courts duty to intervene in a case ripe for adjudication does not mean courts supremacy over other departments of government - POLITICAL QUESTION- RIPE FOR ADJUDICATION

TAN VS MACAPAGAL- CASE IS RIPE FOR ADJUDICATION- 5 page petition against Laurel-Leido Resolution of Constitutional Convention, seeking to declare it without power- the use of American jurisprudence - case was ripe for adjudication when it was enacted and petitioner Gonzales filed a suit- autonomy of Constitutional Convention

PACU VS SECRETARY OF EDUCAITON- JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY- colleges and universities request that Act 2706/3075 and CA 180 be declared unconstitutional, alleging that they deprive owners of schools & colleges, teachers, parents- unlimited power of Secretary of Education (unlawful delegation) - lack of injury on part of petitioners or mere apprehension means no justiciable controversy

LOCUS STANDI

JOYA VS PCGG- 35 petitioners seeking to enjoin PCGG from proceeding with the auction sale of New York if the Old Masters Paintings and 18th and 19th century silverware seized from Malacanang and Metropolitan Museum of Manila- suing as citizens and taxpayers- NO LOCUS STANDI - not legal owners & lack of disbursement of public funds- MOOT AND ACADEMIC CASES

MACASIANO VS NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY- petitioner seeks to declare Sec. 28 & 44 of RA 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992) - suing as consultant of DPWH and as taxpayer- REQUISITES OF JUDICIAL INQUIRY OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LAW- NO LOCUS STANDI & JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY

MARIANO JR. VS COMELEC- petitioners assail the constitutionality of Sec. 51 of Ra 7854- conversion of Makati into a city favors Mayor Jejomar Binays term of office - NO LOCUS STANDI & NOT RIPE FOR ADJUDICATION

OPOSA VS FACTORAN JR. - minor-petitioners right to a balanced & healthful ecology- cancelling of timber license - W/ LOCUS STANDI- represents a class suit

KILOSBAYAN VS GUINGONA, JR.- petitioners (KILOSBAYAN) seek to prohibit and restrain the implementation of Contract of Lease executed by PCSO & PGMC - suing as taxpayers and citizens - LOCUS STANDI & PROCEDURAL TECHNICALITY MAY BE BRUSHED ASIDE DUE TO CASES TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE TO THE PUBLIC - CITIZENS & TAXPAYERS SUIT- W/ LOCUS STANDI

TATAD VS GARCIA, JR.- petition to prohibit respondents from implementing the Revised and Restated Agreement to Build, Lease and Transfer a LRT for EDSA - suing as members of Senate, taxpayers- W/ LOCUS STANDI

KILOSBAYAN VS MORATO- petitioners seeking again to declare ELA invalid on the ground as the Contract of Leases nullified in 1st case- STARE DECISIS/LAW OF THE CASE- MEMBERS OF CONGRESS LOCUS STANDI- RES JUDICATA- LOCUS STANDI VS REAL PARTY IN INTEREST- NOT LAW OF THE CASE; NO LOCUS STANDI

TELEBAP VS COMELEC- BP BLG 881 requires radio and television time be given free for candidates of elections campaigns and other political purposes- takes property w/o due process clause- petitioners TELEBAP & GMA NETWORK- TELEBAP NO LOCUS STANDI (citizens/voters, taxpayers, corporate entity)- GMA W/ LOCUS STANDI

GONZALES VS NARVASA- petitioner Ramon Gonzales assails the constitutionality of the creation of Preparatory Commission on Constitutional Reform (PCCR) and other positions- case is MOOT & ACADEMIC- NO LOCUS STANDI- PCCR came from Presidents funds

DEL MAR, ET AL. VS PAGCOR- W/N PAGCOR is authorized to operate jai-alai/Basque pelota games - PAGCORS contract with BELLE & FILGAME (no cost to PAGCOR)- petitioners suing as taxpayers and legislators- LEGISLATORS LOCUS STANDI

A. MATIBAG VS BENIPAYO (ad-interim)B. TATAD VS SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY(OPSF)C. BAYAN VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY(VFA)D. IBP VS ZAMORA(ERAP increasing crime rate, marines)E. MACALINTAL VS COMELEC- Petitioner Romulo Macalintal, a member of Philippine Bar, seeks to declare RA 9189 (Act providing for a System of Overseas Absentee Voting by Qualified Citizens of Philippines Abroad) as unconstitutional- suing as a taxpayer and lawyer - W/ LOCUS STANDI AS A TAXPAYER - JUDICIAL SUPREMACY = SUPREMACY OF CONSTITUTION

WHITE LIGHT CORPORATION VS CITY OF MANILA- petitioners seek to declare the Ordinance of City of Manila (An Ordinance Prohibiting Short-Time Admission, Short-Time Admission Rates , and Wash-Up Rate Schemes in Hotels, Motels, Inns, Lodging Houses, Pensions Houses and Similar Establishments in the City of Manila) as unconstitutional/invalid, for it interferes with the equal protection rights of their clients - Malate Tourist and Development Corporation (MTDC)- White Light Corporation (WLC)- Titanium Corporation (TC)- Sta. Mesa Tourist and Development Corporation (STDC) - EXCEPTIONS TO RULE ON LOCUS STANDI (overbreadth doctrine, taxpayer, 3rd party standing, doctrine of transcendental importance) - OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE- 3rd PARTY STANDING

A. MARCOS VS MANGLAPUS(Cory prohibits Marcos return)B. DAZA VS SINGSON(Daza HRET representation)C. SANTIAGO VS GUINGONA(Tatad as minority leader)D. THE DAVIDE IMPEACHMENT- EFFECT OF DECLARATION OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY - OPERATIVE FACT - SCs declaration of unconstitutionality of law, govt act creates a precedent and binds all - inferior courts declaration of unconstitutionality of law, govt act binds parties in the case

BUSTOS VS LUCERO- SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS, SUBSTANTIVE LAW VS ADJECTIVE OR REMEDIAL LAW - petitioner allege that Sec. 11 of Rule 108 of Rules of Court (Rights of Defendant after Arrest) infringes on Sec. 13 of Art. 8 of Constitution- it denies the defendant the right to cross-examine witnesses in a preliminary investigation, but it does not deny him his right to present his witnesses and to be informed of the charges against him both in the investigation and at trial- petitioner contend that National Assembly shall have the power to modify the rules on pleading, practice, procedure and admission to the practice of law - Rule 108 is an adjective law, not substantive law- hence, Congress cannot modify such rule

IN RE CUNANAN- Bar Flunkers Act- usurps judiciarys power to regulate admission to the practice of law

JAVELLANA VS DILG- Local Government Code & Memorandums power to regulate the conduct of public officials

PEOPLE VS MATEO- SC [now CA] assumes direct appellate review of all criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment - procedural matter

IN RE: PETITION TO DISQUAIFY ATTY. DE VERA- petitioners seek to disqualify Atty. De Vera from being elected as Governor of Eastern Mindanao - De Vera argues that SC has no jurisdiction over the issue, since it involves internal matter, governed by IBP-laws- SCS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO PROMULGATE THE RULES OF IBP- including its election - also stated in IBP BY-LAWS

SECTION 6

MACEDA VS VAQUEZ- W/N Ombudsman can entertain a criminal complaint for the alleged falsification of a judges certification submitted to SC- W/N a referral should be made first to the SC - Ombudsman encroaches to the power of the SC to supervise over all courts and its personnel- in the absence of any administrative action taken against him by this Court, the investigation of Ombudsman is unlawful- SC ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OVER ALL COURTS AND ITS PERSONNEL

PEOPLE VS GACOTT, JR.- Judge Eustaquio Gacott. Jr committed gross ignorance of the law - petitioner argues that it is only the SC en banc that can administratively punish him, not a division- Constitution not intended that all administrative actions should be heard and decided by the Court en banc - SC EN BANC: DISMISSAL OF JUDGES- SC IN DIVISION: SUSPENSION OF NOT MORE THAN 1 YR OR FINE OF NOT MORE THAN P10K OR BOTH

JUDGE CAIOBES JR. VS OMBUDSMAN- SC VS OMBUDSMAN- SCS ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OVER ALL COURTS AND ITS PERSONNEL - Ombudsman should refer cases to SC

SECTION 7

IN RE: JBC VS JUDGE QUITAIN- Judge Quitain failed to disclose that he was administratively charged and dismissed from the service for grave misconduct by the former President of the Philippines

KILOSBAYAN VS ERMITA- petitioners allege that the appointment of Exe. Sec. to judge Ong is unconstitutional, and w/ grave abuse of discretion, because respondent Ong is not a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. - respondent Ong cannot accept appointment- QUO WARRANTO PROCEEDING

SECTION 8

ARTICLE 9: CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS

SECTION 1

MACALINTAL VS COMELECJoint Congressional Oversight Committee infringes COMELECs constitutional power to promulgate its own rules

SECTION 2:

SECTION 3:

SECTION 4:

SECTION 5:

SECTION 6:

ARUELO JR. VS COURT OF APPEALS- Gatchalian filed election protest in RTC of Malolos, Bulacan- COMELEC procedure of 5 days from receipt of summons - lapse of five-day period when Gatchalian filed his answer- but Gatchalian filed protest at Court, so COMELECs rules do not apply

ANTONIO VS COMELEC- election protest of Barangay elections filing- 10 days in RA 6679 and Omnibus Election Code or 5 days in COMELECs Rules of Procedure- 5 days, since COMELEC can promulgate its own rules

SECTION 7

CUA VS COMELEC- COMELEC rendered decision in favor of Cua but suspended his proclamation due to 2-1 votes, which needs to be unanimous- petitioner says it is valid - SC: it is valid

MISON VS COA- Customs Commissioner decided that there was illegal seizure of vessel of Japanese registry by Philippine Navy from Chan Chiu On and Cheung I and ordered its release- it sank while in custody of Bureau of Customs and orders it salvage - Chan Chiu On and Cheung I claims repayment from COA- Espiritu denied - but such decision is void because she had no power to render and promulgate a decision for the Commission

MATEO VS COURT OF APPEALS- jurisdiction of RTC involving a case of dismissal of an employee of a quasi-public corporation- SC: No- MOWAD is a quasi-public corporation - employees of govt controlled and owned corporation are governed by Civil Service Law and Rules and Regulations

AMBIL VS COMELEC- Guiani resolution declaring Ramirez as victor in the case is void- Guiani vacated the position even before the resolution was promulgated- his vote was automatically invalidated - no valid resolution to speak of

DUMAYAS JR. VS COMELEC- Commissioners Gorrospe and Guiani votes are invalid but the decision is still binding because it still constituted a quorum - no need for nullification of the decision

SECTION 8:

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

SECTION 1

GAMINDE VS COA- President appointed Gaminde ad interim, as Commissioner of CSC- Commission of Appt. confirmed her apt.- Gaminde clarified the expiry date of her term- Chief President Legal Counsel Corona said it is Feb. 2, 2000, not Feb. 2, 1999.- General Counsel of COA said that the term of Gaminde will expire on Feb. 2, 1999 as stated in her apt. paper, in accordance to Constitution- expiration of term is on Feb. 2, 1999 by virtue of her acceptance in the apt. paper - there is regular interval of vacancy for the 1st five-year term Commissioner

SECTION 2

EIIB VS COURT OF APPEALS- EIIB (Economic Intelligence and Investigation Board) request exemption from CSC rules and regulations with respect to apt. and other personnel actions, invoking exemption PD 1458 - EIIB is under Dept. of Finance, so EIIB is under the Civil Service Law. - also it does not hold office of primarily confidential in nature

CSC VS PAGCOR- Rafael Salas was appointed by PAGCOR as Internal Security Staff (ISS) member and assigned to the casino in Manila Pavilion Hotel- Board of Directors terminated him for loss of confidence- Salas was engaged in proxy betting - Salas appealed before the Board of Directors, MSPB - MSPB denied on the ground that Salas is a confidential employee, thus his term just expired, he was not dismissed- Court of Appeals ruled that Salas is not a confidential employee; it applied the proximity rule- Salas is not a confidential employee - no close intimacy as he does not report directly to the Chairman- he is in the lowest chain of command - it is the nature that determines its confidentiality- Pres proclamation is just initial

CANONIZADO VS AGUIRRE- constitutionality of PNP Reform Act of 1998- all members of NAPOLCOM were terminated- petitioners claim that it violated their security of tenure- unconstitutional because RA 6715 did not expressly or impliedly abolish the offices of petitioners, there being no irreconcilable inconsistency in the nature, duties and functions of the petitioners offices under the old law and the new law - the law was merely a declaration of the expiration of NAPOLCOMs term - there was no change in duties and functions - Congress obviously had no intent to reorganize NAPOLCOM

SECRETARY GLORIA VS COURT OF APPEALS- DECS - whether the reassignment of petitioner to MIST violates his security of tenure - yes - because there was nothing in memo that says he will be transferred temporarily- tempo apt. is okay but not if it is a step to his termination from old position

BUKLOD NG KAWANING EIIB VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY- Buklod ng Kawaning EEIIB sought the nullification of EO 23, because:a) they were issued by the Office of President w/ GADELEJ and violates their security of tenureb) no authority to abolish EEIB; only Congress can abolishc) abolition is in bad faith- Cory issued EO 127 creating EEIB- ERAP issued EO 191 deactivated EEIB and transferred its functions to NBI & BOC- ERAP issued EO 196 creating Presidential Anti-Smuggling Task Force Aduana- ERAP terminated EEIB employees, reorganizing EEIB due to abolition, redundancy, merger, division or consolidation of positions- SC: deactivate vs abolish - President, insofar as executive bureaus, agencies and offices, can justify his deactivation of certain offices and reorganize - EEIB is attached to Dept. of Finance, thus, subject to President- Task Force Aduana is done in good faith; it is for economy - EEIB is burdensome and expensive for government- Security of Tenure is not violated- valid abolition is not removal or separation of incumbents

DIMAYUGA VS BENEDICTO II- Secretary of Public Works and Highways Jose de Jesus issued permanent appointment of Dimayuga as Exe. Director of the Toll Regulatory Board- BOT projects & 3 divisions there- CSC issued a Memo - petitioner was suspended twice - petitioner was temporarily detailed to Office of Secretary of DPWH- as a protest, he files a LOA rather than assume position, he said it is a demotion- ERAP appointed Benedicto as Exe. Dir. of the Board - petitioner filed a petition for quo warranto - petitioner is not a CESO, without the required eligibility for a career service position, petitioner cannot be considered a permanent appointee- at the time he was appointed, his position is not yet under CES- its subsequent inclusion does not automatically qualify her for said position - refusal to vacate position violates presidents authority to apt.- no violation of security of tenure, because it is only available to permanent appointees (those who meet all requirements for the position)- he can be removed anytime- if CESOs security of tenure pertains only to his rank and not position, petitioner, who is not even an CESO eligible, has no security of tenure

MIRANDA VS CARREON- Vice Mayor Navarro, as acting mayor, appointed respondents to positions in city government, w/ permanent status based on City Personnel Selection and Promotion Board created by CSC- Miranda reassumed his office and after his suspension, he considered the PSCG as irregular, since the majority party, to which he belongs was not properly represented- he formed 3-man special performance audit team to conduct a personnel evaluation audit - the respondents lack performance- Miranda terminated respondents for performing poorly during probationary period- respondents contend that they can only be dismissed after probationary period, not after 3 months - it violates security of tenure- Jose Miranda was disqualified for candidacy- his son, Joel, substituted for him and was proclaimed Mayor of Santiago City- Joels proclamation as a mayor was set aside- Vice Mayor Navarro became mayor- Navarro withdrew the motion for reconsideration- CA granted- SC: when Joel Miranda has ceased to be mayor of Santiago City, his successor may continue, if the latter finds reason- Navarro find no reason and even reinstated the respondents- employees under probation due to poor performance can only be dismissed after 6 months - in this case, it was not observed, denying them due process

SENERES VS COMELEC AND ROBLES- Robles was elected as president and chairperson of BUHAY, a party-list group - Robles signed and filed a Certificate of Nomination of BUHAYs nominees for 2007 elections- petitioner filed a case and contends that Robles as BUHAY President and Administration of LRTA was engaging in electioneering or partisan political activity- SC held that Robles act of submitting a nomination list for BUHAY cannot be considered electioneering or partisan political activity, because petitioner did not commit the 5 acts- it is for the purpose of enhancing the chances of aspirants for nominations for candidacy to public office by a political party, agreement or a coalition of parties, thus, it is not prohibited- signing and filing of Certificate of Nomination: these are internal matters- mere compliance to COMELECs requirements

NASECO VS NLRC- government-owned and controlled corporations are under the civil service commission if they have their original charters, meaning they are created by laws, not under the corporation law.- since NASECO is under NIDC, it is not a GOCC with original charter

SAMSON VS COURT OF APPEALS- mayor Samson of Caloocan City terminated services of Talens, the Asst. Secretary of Mayor on the ground of lack and loss of confidence and appointed Liwag- petitioner interpreted the provision that the position of secretaries to city mayors are non-competitive and that it includes the Asst. Secretary of Mayor - SC: Asst. Secretary being of lower rank, need not carry the requisites attaching to the primarily confidential position of the actual secretary of mayor- asst. secretarys job does not automatically involve the trust and confidence of the mayor to his secretary, because it only aids and assists the secretary

HERNANDEZ VS VILLEGAS- officials and employees holding primarily confidential positions continue only for so long as confidence in them endures- their termination is justified on the ground of loss of confidence because in that case, there was no removal, only expiration of term of office

ACHACOSO VS MACARAIG- petitioner invokes security of tenure against his removal without legal cause - respondent assert that he is not entitled to security of tenure because he is not a career official- SC: a permanent appointment can be issued only to a person who meets all the requirements for the position, including eligibility- Achacoso did not, thus, his appointment is only temporary- it could be terminated at any time - the mere fact that the position belongs to Career Service does not automatically confer security of tenure to him, where he does not possess all the requirements and eligibility

BRIONES VS OSMENA- Municipal Board approved Ordinance abolishing 15 positions in the City Mayors office and 17 positions in the Municipal Board, a total of 32 positions- Ordinance was approved by Mayor- Briones and Rosagaran protested and declared that they will not relinquish their positions- City Treasurer and Auditor refused to pay their salaries - petitioners filed a case- there was a violation of their security of tenure- Rosagaran was model employee and they have rendered honorable and long services- just a short time before the abolition of their positions, respondents created 35 positions in the city mayors office, so no excuse of economy and efficiency

MAYOR VS MACARAIG- constitutionality of RA 6715 declaring vacant all positions in COMELEC, Executive Labor Arbiters and Labor Arbiters of NLRCto professionalize the higher levels of officialdom invested in adjudicatory powers and functions and to upgrade their qualifications, ranks and salaries or emoluments- W/N RA 6715 abolished the offices of the petitioners- there is no express abolition of the petitioners position- there was no irreconcilable inconsistencies between the nature, duties and functions of the petitioners offices - thus it violates their security of tenure

BINAMIRA VS GARRUCHO, JR.- Binamira seeks reinstatement to the office of the General Manager of the Philippine Tourism Authority- he claims to have been removed w/o just cause, thus, violating his security of tenure- his resignation was demanded by the respondent Garrucho as the new Secretary of Tourism - Binamiras demurrer led to an unpleasant exchange that led to his filing of a complaint against the Secretary of the Commission on Human Rights- Garrucho was designated as General Manager of the PTA- Binamira said that Capistrano was appointed as General Manager of PTA- SC: petitioner was not appointed by the President, only designated by the Minister of Tourism- appointment vs designation- the secretary of tourism is designated as chairman of BOD of the PTA- the appointment was not a merely mechanical or ministerial act that could be validly performed by a subordinate even if he is member of Cabinet- acts of the department heads shall be considered acts of president, if not disapproved or reprobated- sec. Gonzales designation to Binamira was recalled by the President through the memo she addressed to secretary Garrucho- petitioner is not entitled to security of tenure- his designation is temporary, thus could be withdrawn anytime

LUEGO VS CSC- Is the CSC authorized to disapprove a permanent appointment on the ground that another person is better qualified than the appointee, and thereafter replaced him - SC: appointment of the petitioner was not temporary but permanent - CSC is not empowered to determine the kind of nature of the appointment extended by the appointing officer- its authority is limited to approving or reviewing or attesting the appointment in the light of the requirements of the Civil Service Law- appointment is discretionary - CSC can only check if the appointee possesses the required qualifications- both petitioner and respondent were qualified for the position - CSC could not validly revoked said appointment just because it believed that the respondent was better qualified, it is encroachment to the discretion of the appointing authority

SANTIAGO, JR. VS CSC- CSC issued a resolution revoking the promotional appointment of Santiago Jr from Collector I to Collector of Customs III, and directing instead the appointment of respondent Jose to the same position- Customs Commissioner Tanada extended a permanent promotional appointment as Customs Collector III to Santiago and confirmed by CSC- Jose filed a protest with Merit System Promotion Board against Santiagos promotional appointment on the ground that he was next-in-rank to the position of Customs collector II- CSC ruled in favor of Jose, since he has better qualifications in terms of education, civil service eligibilities and training courses- SC: no mandatory nor peremptory requirement in the Civil Service Law that persons next-in-rank are entitled to preference in appointment- they would only be among those first considered for the vacancy - there is no reason to amend Santiagos promotional appointment, since he has satisfied the minimum qualifications and the standard of the merit and fitness required

ASTRAQUILLO, ET AL. VS MANGLAPUS- consolidated 5 cases- Astraquillo was appointed by the President as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary and Chief of Mission II to UAE- case was filed against petitioner, his wife and cousin-in-law of improper interference to Seneres functions - the matter was investigated by Ambassador Castrp- DFA Sec. issued a memo, recommending to the President the termination of Ambassador Astraquillos appointment - President terminated Astraquillo and designated Felicio as Charge dAffaires - petitioners contend that their removal was w/o due process - SC: the positions of 3 petitioners fall under the Non-Career Service or political appointees- their appointments were made on bases other than those of the usual test of merit and fitness utilized for the career service - their entrance was not based on merit and fitness, determined by competitive examinations- therefore, their tenure was coterminous with that of the appointing authority or subject to his pleasures

SSS VS COURT OF APPEALS- W/N the RTC can enjoin the SSS Employees Association from striking and order the striking employees to return to work - do SSS employees have right to strike- while the Constitution recognizes the right to strike of government employees to organize, it is silent as to W/N such recognition includes right to strike- intent of ConCom: do not include right to strike - Labor Code & CSL is also silent- since there is no law authorizing the government employees to strike, then SSS employees are prohibited, since they are under the CSC, due to having original charter

AQUINO VS CSC- petitioner invokes that the CSC has no authority to revoke an appointment on the ground that another person is more qualified for a position - SC: the situation is different in the instant case, wherein the CSC revoked the appointment of the successful petitioner, because the right to security of tenure of the respondent, the prior appointee, to the contested position had already attached- CSC did not direct the appointment of a substitute of its choice- it merely restored that appointment of the respondent who was first appointed to the contested position

PNOC VS NLRC- Pineda was employed in the Philippine National Oil Co.-Energy Development Corp. as subsidiary of the Philippine National Oil Co.- he was terminated- while holding the position of Geothermal Construction Secretary, Engineering and Construction Department at Togonan Geothermal Project, Pineda decided to run for councilor of the Municipality of Kananga, Leyte in the local elections and he filed his COC- I: W/N an employee in GOCC with an original charter falls within the scope of Sec. 66 of Omnibus Election Code- SC: Sec. 66 of Omnibus Election Code applies to officers and employees in GOCC even those organized under the general laws on incorporation and therefore not having an original or legislative charter, and even if they do not fall under the CSL but under the Labor Code.- Sec. 66 constitutes just cause for termination of employment in addition to those set forth in Labor Code-it is within the Sec. 66

LAPINID VS CSC- CSC has no power of appointment except over its own personnel- it does not have authority to review the appointments made by other offices, except only to ascertain if the appointee possesses the required qualifications - it cannot disallow appointment on the ground that another person is better qualified for the position - CSC shall apply the doctrine in Luego vs CSC, otherwise, they shall be considered in contempt of this Court

SECTION 3:

SECTION 4

SECTION 5

SECTION 6

SECTION 7

PEOPLE VS SANDIGANBAYAN- Villapando ran for Municipal Mayor of San Vicente Palawan- Tiape, a relative of Villapandos wife, ran for Mayor of Kitcharao, Agusan Del Norte- Villapando won but Tiape did not- Villapando designated Tiape as Municipal Administrator of the Municipality of San Vicente, Palawan- A contract of consultancy between San Vicente, Palawan and Tiape was made, hiring him for a period of 6 months- Maagad and Fernandez charged Villapando and Tiape for violation of Art. 244 of RPC- SC: Art. 244 of RPC means disqualification under the law - LGC prohibits the losing candidates within one year after such election to be appointed to any office in the government or any GOCC and its subsidiaries- Legal disqualification under the Art. 244 of RPC cannot be read as excluding temporary disqualification in order to exempt the legal prohibitions under the Constitution and LGC

FLORES VS DRILON AND GORDON- constitutionality of Bases Convertion and Development Act of 1992, where Mayor Gordon was appointed chairman of SBMA for the 1st year and it was challenged- SC: the provision contravenes the Constitution- the fact that the expertise of an elective official may be most beneficial to the higher interest of the body politic is immaterial- P: LGC allows apt. of a local elective official to another post if so allowed by law or by the primary functions of his office- SC: LGC is not determinative of the constitutionality of RA 7227 for no legislative act can prevail over the Constitution - SBMA chairman is not ex-officio, Congress did not intend it, because they could have just used the word ex-officio instead of appointed

SECTION 8

SANTOS VS COURT OF APPEALS- petitioner was appointed judge of METC of QC and assumed office- petitioner optionally retired from the judiciary and received his retirement pension- after 5 years, he was appointed as Director III of the Traffic Operation Center of MMA, while receiving his monthly pension- Congress enacted a law, reorganizing MMA to MMDA- President issued a memo approving the IRR off MMDA law and authorizing the payment of the separation benefits to the officials and employees of the former MMA who would be separated due to MMDA reorganization- MMDA issued a memo to petitioner, terminating him and entitling him to separation benefits for every year that he served in MMA- petitioner asserted that since the retirement gratuity he received under RA 910 is not additional or double compensation , all the years of his service in government including those years in judiciary shall be credited in the computation of his retirement benefits- Acebedo made his opinion which CSC adopted that for the purposes of computing the petitioners retirement pension, his years of service in the judiciary should be excluded and that his separation pay should be solely confined to his services in the MMA- it does not consist of double compensation, he could still receive the same even if after the retirement he had been receiving salary from the MMA- retirement benefits are rewards for his services as METC judge while his salary was his compensation for his services as Director III of MMA

HERRERA VS NAPOCOR- W/N the NAPOCOR employees who were separated from service due to the reorganization of the electric power industry and who received their separation pay under RA 9136 are still entitled to receive retirement benefits- since there is no law that allows granting of both separation pay ad retirement benefits, SC cannot grant it- within the context of government reorganization, separation pay and retirement benefits arising from the same cause are in consideration of the same services and granted for the same purpose - petitioner invokes RA 6656 which provide that unless also separated for cause, all officers and employees who have been separated pursuant to reorganization shall, if entitled thereto, be paid the appropriate separation pay and retirement and other benefits- SC: their interpretation has little legal precedent- CSC previously ruled that employees similarly situated to the petitioners were not entitled to both separation pay and retirement benefits, instead the concerned employee must either avail the separation benefit or the retirement benefits

BENGUET STATE UNIVERSITY VS COA- Congress passed RA 8292, An Act Providing for the Uniform Composition and Powers of the Government Boards, the Manner of Appointment and Term of Office of the President of Chartered State Universities and Colleges- The Board of Regents of BSU passed and approved a resolution granting rice subsidy and health care allowance to BSU employees- the money was taken from the income derived by BSU - petitioner claims that its action is based on RA 8292, that the other programs/projects of the university or college in Ra 8292 covers all projects and programs of the university, including those designed to uplift the economic plight of the employees- SC: under the principle of ejusdem generis, where a statute describes things of a particular class or kind accompanied by words of a generic character, the generic word will usually be limited to things of a similar nature, unless there be something in context of the statute which would repel such inference- the COA correctly ruled that the other programs/projects under 8292 and IRR should be of the same nature as instruction, research and extension- BSUs case, it is for rice subsidy & healthcare programs

COMELEC

BRILLANTES VS YORACFACTS: In December 1989, a coup attempt occurred prompting the president to create a fact finding commission which would be chaired by Hilario Davide. Consequently he has to vacate his chairmanship over the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Haydee Yorac, an associate commissioner in the COMELEC, was appointed by then President Corazon Aquino as a temporary substitute, in short, she was appointed in an acting capacity. Sixto Brillantes, Jr. then questioned such appointment urging that under Art 10-C of the Constitution in no case shall any member of the COMELEC be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.

Brillantes further argued that the choice of the acting chairman should not come from the President for such is an internal matter that should be resolved by the members themselves and that the intrusion of the president violates the independence of the COMELEC as a constitutional commission.ISSUE: Whether or not the designation made by the president violates the constitutional independence of the COMELEC.

HELD: Yes. Yoracs designation as acting chairman is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that although all constitutional commissions are essentially executive in nature, they are not under the control of the president in the discharge of their functions. The designation made by the president has dubious justification as it was merely grounded on the quote administrative expediency to present the functions of the COMELEC. Aside from such justification, it found no basis on existing rules on statutes. It is the members of the COMELEC who should choose whom to sit temporarily as acting chairman in the absence of Davide (they normally do that by choosing the most senior member).But even though the presidents appointment of Yorac as acting president is void, the members of COMELEC can choose to reinstate Yorac as their acting chairman the point here is that, it is the members who should elect their acting chairman pursuant to the principle that constitutional commissions are independent bodies.

CAYETANO VS MONSODIn 1991, Christian Monsod was appointed as the Chairman of the Commission on Elections. His appointment was affirmed by the Commission on Appointments. Monsods appointment was opposed by Renato Cayetano on the ground that he does not qualify for he failed to meet the Constitutional requirement which provides that the chairman of the COMELEC should have been engaged in the practice law for at least ten years.Monsods track record as a lawyer:Passed the bar in 1960 with a rating of 86.55%.Immediately after passing, worked in his fathers law firm for one year.Thereafter, until 1970, he went abroad where he had a degree in economics and held various positions in various foreign corporations.In 1970, he returned to the Philippines and held executive jobs for various local corporations until 1986.In 1986, he became a member of the Constitutional Commission.

ISSUE: Whether or not Monsod qualifies as chairman of the COMELEC. What constitutes practice of law?

HELD: Yes. Atty. Monsods past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.As noted by various authorities, the practice of law is not limited to court appearances. The members of the bench and bar and the informed laymen such as businessmen, know that in most developed societies today, substantially more legal work is transacted in law offices than in the courtrooms. General practitioners of law who do both litigation and non-litigation work also know that in most cases they find themselves spending more time doing what is loosely described as business counseling than in trying cases. In the course of a working day the average general practitioner will engage in a number of legal tasks, each involving different legal doctrines, legal skills, legal processes, legal institutions, clients, and other interested parties. Even the increasing numbers of lawyers in specialized practice wig usually perform at least some legal services outside their specialty. By no means will most of this work involve litigation, unless the lawyer is one of the relatively rare types a litigator who specializes in this work to the exclusion of much else. Instead, the work will require the lawyer to have mastered the full range of traditional lawyer skills of client counseling, advice-giving, document drafting, and negotiation.

GALIDO VS COMELECPerfecto Galido and Saturnino Galeon were both candidates for Mayor in the municipality of Garcia-Hernandez, Bohol, for in the 18 January 1988 elections. Galido was proclaimed Mayor-elect by the Municipal Board of Canvassers.

Galeon filed an election protest before the RTC of Bohol, which upheld Galidos proclamation who won by a majority of 11 votes. Galeon appealed to the COMELEC, which reversed the decision and declared Galeon as the winner by a plurality of 5 votes. The COMELEC held that 15 ballots in a precinct containing the initial C after the name Galido were marked ballots and are therefore invalid.

Galido filed a petition for certiorari and injunction with the SC but was dismissed due to procedural infirmities. The MR was also denied with finality. Undaunted, Galido filed another petition for certiorari and injunction and a prayer for a restraining order which contains the same allegations as the previous case which was dismissed. The court issued the TRO. Galeon moved for the dismissal of the case.

ISSUE: W/N COMELECs decision may be appealed

HELD: YES. The fact that decisions, final orders, or rulings of the COMELEC in contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices are final, executory, and not appealable, does not preclude a recourse to the SC by way of a special civil action of certiorari.

However, the Court finds no reason to overturn COMELECs decision. It did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it rendered the questioned decision.

PEOPLE VS HON. DELGADO- W/N the court has the power or authority to order the COMELEC through its Elections through its Regional Election Director of Region or its Law Department to conduct a reinvestigation of Criminal Case. - petitioner contends that COMELECs actions on election matters may be reviewed only on certiorari by the SC. - respondent contends that since the cases filed in court by COMELEC as public prosecutor, and not in the exercise of its power to decide election contests, the RTC has authority to order reinvestigation. - SC: Thus, when COMELEC conducts preliminary investigation of an election offense and upon a prima facie finding of a probable cause files the information in the proper court, all the subsequent disposition of said case must be subject to the approval of the court. - The COMELEC cannot conduct reinvestigation without authority of court or unless ordered by court

PEOPLE VS JUDGE INTING- Issue: does a preliminary investigation conducted by a provincial election supervisor involving election offenses have to be coursed through the provincial prosecutor before the RTC may take cognizance of the investigation and determine W/N probable cause exists. - RTC said that COMELEC through its Provincial Election Supervisor has no jurisdiction to determine the existence of probable cause in an election offense. - SC: Preliminary investigation should be distinguished as to whether it is an investigation for the determination of a sufficient ground for the filing of the information (executive) or it is an investigation for the determination of a probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest (judicial) - Constitution mandates COMELEC not only to investigate but also to prosecute cases of violation of election laws, thus it is exclusively empowered to conduct preliminary investigations in cases involving election offenses for the purpose of helping the judge determine probable cause and for filing an information in court. - So, the Provincial Fiscal has no role in the prosecution of election offenses. If the Fiscal or Prosecutor files information charging an election law, it is because he has been deputized by the COMELEC, not because of his office.

CORPUS VS TANODBAYAN- Issue is which of the Sandiganbayan, Tanodbayan, CFI or COMELEC has authority to investigate, prosecute and try election offenses committed by a public officer in relation to his office. - SC: Court rejects the assertion that no tribunal other than the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over offenses committed by public officers in relation to their office. - COMELEC has exclusive jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute election offenses committed by any person. - As long as the offense is an election offense jurisdiction is exclusively to COMELEC.

TAN VS COMELEC- petitioner, the City Prosecutor of Davao, contends that COMELEC committed GADELEJ in continuing with the administrative case against petitioner, because:- he is under the executive branch, thus not under the COMELEC and COMELEC cannot institute disciplinary action against them. - Civil Service Law provides that department heads shall have jurisdiction to investigate and decide matters involving disciplinary action against officers under their jurisdiction. - SC: the administrative case taken in cognizance by the COMELEC is In relation to the performance of his duties as an election canvasser and not as city prosecutor- COMELEC has mandate to exercise direct and immediate supervision and control over national and local officials or employees, including members of any national or local law enforcement agency and instrumentality. - the law also provides that COMLEC shall take appropriate action to suspend or remove from office the officer who may be found guilty of violation of election laws, orders, decisions, rulings of COMELEC. - power of the commission over deputized officers covers not just criminal cases but also administrative cases- upon COMELECs recommendation of proper disciplinary action to the proper authority due to guilty of election laws - only recommend not execute the disciplinary action

REYES VS RTC- only decisions of COMELEC en banc may be brought to SC certiorari

KILOSBAYAN VS COMELEC- There is a mandate for the COMELEC to investigate and prosecute cases of violation of election laws- translate in effect to the exclusive power to conduct preliminary inquiry, whether or not a warrant of arrest should be issued- Task of the COMELEC as an investigator and prosecutor, acting upon any election complaint is not physical searching and gathering of proof in support of a complaint for an alleged commission of an election offense -complainant must submit evidence

BUAC AND BAUTISTA VS COMELEC- petitioners Buac and Bautista assails the COMELEC en banc resolution which held that it has no jurisdiction over controversies involving the conduct of plebiscite and annulment of its result. - petitioners contend that COMELEC has authority to decide plebiscite protest cases. - COMELEC asserts that it is the RTC that has jurisdiction over election protests involving municipal officials and that COMELEC only has appellate jurisdiction. - SC: RTC has no jurisdiction over plebiscites, because there is no actual controversy between plaintiff and defendant. The case assailing the regularity of the conduct of the Taguig plebiscite does not fit the kind of a case calling for the exercise of judicial power. There are no demandable rights involved. It merely involves the ascertainment of the vote of the electorate of Taguig whether they approve or disapprove the conversion of their municipality to a city. - The issue is the determination of the sovereign decision of the electorate of Taguig. - There are no clashing rights, so no need to exercise judicial power.

LDP VS COMELEC- Angara vs Aquino (intra-party dispute)- COMELEC must choose the rightful party -COMELEC need only resolve such questions as may be necessary in the exercise of its enforcement of powers

MANZALA VS COMELEC- Manzala, Monton as mayor of Romblon seeks to annul the COMELEC en banc resolution declaring Monton to be duly elected Municipal Mayor of Romblon and denying petitioners motion for reconsideration to modify the number of votes obtain by both parties.- Petitioner argues that the motion for reconsideration filed with the Former 2nd Division of the COMELEC has made it a criminal case, yet the COMELEC en banc failed to conduct a thorough review of the contested ballots. - SC: COMELEC exercises appellate jurisdiction to review, revise, modify, or even reverse the decision of former and substitute it with its own decision. - Election cases cannot be treated in a similar manner as criminal cases where, upon appeal from a conviction by the trial court, the whole case is thrown open for review and the appellate court can resolve issue which are not even set forth in the pleadings. - COMELEC en banc had thoroughly reviewed the decision of its Former 2nd Division and affirmed the findings with modifications as to the number of votes obtained by both parties.

BAYTAN VS COMELEC - Whether the COMELEC en bancs assumption of original jurisdiction over the case without first referring it to any of its divisions violated the Constitution - petitioners assert that COMELEC en banc acted with GADELEJ when it assumed original jurisdiction over the case without first referring the same to any of its divisions. - SC: The Constitution does not provide how its administrative powers may be exercised, either by en banc or by division. - It only states that the COMELEC may sit en banc or by 2 divisions.- Therefore, the COMELEC en banc may act directly on matters falling within its administrative powers. - But its, quasi-judicial powers, including election cases and pre-proclamation controversies, must first be exercised by COMELEC divisions, and that only upon motion for reconsideration may COMELEC en banc assume jurisdiction. - Also, COMELEC is empowered to prosecute cases of violations of election laws, but it involves that exercise of COMELECs administrative powers. - Thus, COMELEC en banc can directly approve the recommendation of its Law Department to file the criminal information for double registration against petitioners. - There is no provision that criminal information must first be decided by its divisions.

- If a case which should go to the COMELEC en banc is erroneously field with a division, it may automatically be elevated to the COMELEC en banc

BALINDONG VS COMELEC- Anwar Balindong was a candidate for Mayor Lanao del sur- He seeks to annul the COMELEC en banc resolution, ordering Municipal Board of Canvassers to immediately convene and exclude from canvass the election return for a certain precinct and 88 votes in another precinct, not in favor of Anwar but Balindong. - W/N COMELEC en banc had jurisdiction over pre-proclamation controversies at 1st instance.- SC: No, because Constitution provides that election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies should be heard and decided first at the division level. - COMELEC acted with GADELEJ. - Said resolutions are null and void.

SANIDAD VS COMELEC- Petitioner, a columnist in Baguio and Cordilleras, assailed the constitutionality of the COMELEC resolution, prohibiting columnists and commentators during the plebiscite campaign period. - Petitioner alleges that it violates freedom of expression, speech. - SC: what was granted to COMELEC was the power to supervise and regulate the use and enjoyment of franchises, permits or other grants issued for the operation of transportation, or other public utilities, media of communication or information for equal opportunity of time and space, etc. - The evil sought to be prevented is the possibility that a franchise holder may favor or give undue advantage to a candidate in terms of advertising space in radio or TV.- That is why a columnist a candidate is also asked to take leave of absence during campaign period.- But COMELEC is not authorized to supervise and regulate the exercise by media practitioners themselves of right to expression during plebiscite periods. In fact, there are no candidates involved in a plebiscite. - In plebiscites, there not candidates. It is a matter of public concern and peoples right to be informed must be preserved.- COMELECs resolution is null and void.

ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION VS COMELEC- The holding of exit polls and dissemination of their results through mass media constitute and essential part of the freedoms of speech and of the press, hence COMELEC cannot band them totally in the guise of promoting clean, honest, orderly and credible elections. - COMELEC said that it is to ensure free, honest, clean and peaceful election, because an exit poll has the tendency to sow confusion considering the randomness of selecting interviewees, which may be unreliable, thus destroying the credibility of electoral process. - W/N COMELEC committed GADELEJ when it restricted the conduction of exit polls by ABSCBN during elections.- SC: COMELEC committed GADELEJ- exit polls can inform public of the general sentiment of community, and it does not replace COMELEC count, therefore, it cannot violate the integrity of the elections. - Omnibus Election Code prohibits disruptive behavior during elections, but there is no showing that exit polls cause chaos in voting centers. - COMELEC cannot ban them through TRO - the interest of the state in reducing disruption is outweighed by the drastic abridgement of the constitutionally guaranteed rights of media and electorate.

SOCIAL WEATHER STATIONS VS COMELEC- Social Weather Station is a research institution conducting surveys in various fields, including economics, politics. - Kamahalan Publishing Corporation publish election surveys- Petitioner filed a case, questioning the Fair Election Code Act, prohibiting election surveys to be published 15 days before national elections and 7 days before local elections.- Petitioner wants to conduct election surveys throughout the election period of both national and local levels, and until the last day of elections. - Petitioners argue that it constitutes restraint on freedom of speech without clear and present danger for such restraint. - COMELEC said that:- it is for the objectivity of election, to prevent bandwagon, and the impairment of freedom is minimal. - SC: Sec. 5.4 of Fair Election Act was unconstitutional and COMELEC cannot ban, for it violates freedom of speech, expression and press.

COA

DINGCONG VS GUINGONA JR. - Atty Dingcong was the former acting Regional director of Bureau of Treasury in Iloilo City- In a public bidding, contracted in emergency labor basis, hired Layson, a private carpenter and electrician for the renovation and improvement of Bureau of Treasury of Iloilo City, as a casual worker, because he submitted the lowest bidding.- COA disallowed the petitioners claims for reimbursement of payments he had advanced for services rendered on pakyaw basis. - petitioner alleges that the disallowances are invalid for being an usurpation of a management function and an impairment of contract. - SC: COA had authority but it incorrectly disallowed because di naman disadvantageous, excessive- the hiring of Layson on pakywa basis was for efficiency and reduction of costs - Pakyaw basis is not really disadvantageous, since it only amounted to P3,000.- Bureau of Treasury hired him in order to do away with the hiring of a carpenter and electrician, thereby entailing higher costs.

DANVILLE MARITIME, INC. VS COA- W/N COA committed GADELEJ when it ruled that there was a failure of bidding when only one bid was submitted and ordered rebidding- COA correctly decided cause there is no competitive bidding if only 1 participant, and that competitive bidding requires at least 2 bidders - COA did not commit GADELEJ, for it has authority to define scope of its audit, etc.- COA realized that the applicable rules and law as to be disposal of government assets failed to provide for clear definition of failure of public bidding, so COA analogously applied the policy in government infrastructure contracts. - As long as there is no GADELEJ, COA decision will not be disturbed

RAMOS VS AQUINO- Then Fiscal of Rizal, Aquino, was prevented to conduct a preliminary investigation. - W/N there is encroachment of the Auditor Generals power if after the final approval of certain vouchers by him without an appeal being made, an inquiry by a provincial fiscal to determine whether a criminal liability for malversation through falsification of public official and commercial documents based thereon could be lawfully conducted- petitioner contends that Aquino encroaches upon the power of Auditor General who is vested not only with the duty to examine or audit all expenditures of funds of the government but also to audit or investigate and bring to the attention of the proper administrative officer expenditures of funds or property which is, in its opinion, irregular, unnecessary and excessive. - that it is incumbent upon the Auditor General to determine W/N a criminal liability for the anomaly discovered lies. - that Congress must enact first a law for the disbursement of money from the treasury. - that accounts already settled cannot be reviewed anymore. - SC: No, there is no encroachment of power. - COA is vested with authority to audit, examine and settle accounts, promulgate laws and auditing rules and regulations, but ascertainment of a criminal responsibility is not within its authority. - Congress is not in the position to oversee the actual release of each and every appropriation. - it is COA that has that duty. - COA can review accounts which are infected with fraud, collusion, error of calculation. - COAs job is administrative and not criminal- It cannot conduct an investigation to ascertain criminal charges.

MAMARIL VS DOMINGO- Petitioner contends that he cannot be held liable on the audit disallowances because he was not accountable officer, his work is purely clerical, he did not come into possession of any money and property for which he is asked to pay and he did not act in bad faith.- W/N COA can audit persons other than those accountable.- SC: Yes, COA has authority for state audit.- COA can define the scope of its audit. But, where the internal control system of the audited agencies is inadequate, the COA may adopt measures, including temporary and special pre-audit, as necessary to correct deficiencies. - State audit is not limited to the auditing of the accountable officers and the settlement of accounts, but includes accounting functions and the adoption in the audited agencies of internal controls to see to it that the correct fees and penalties due the government are collected.

SAMBELI VS PROVINCE OF ISABELA - petitioner assails the ruling of COA and contends that the contract of sale has not been perfected between Province of Isabela and petitioner but delivery has been made with the corresponding payment by Isabela. Thus, it is allegedly incumbent upon COA to authorize payment of the balance because to act otherwise will constitute an impairment of contract. - SC: COA is vested with authority to define the scope of its audit and examination, promulgate auditing rules, including those for the prevention of excessive, extravagant, unnecessary and unconscionable expenditures of the government funds and properties. - The disallowance made by COA is within its authority.- COA may stop the payment of the price stipulated in government contracts when found to be irregular, extravagant or unconscionable

OSMENA VS COA - Cebu city decided to construct a modern abattoir, so the City treasurer, Pestano, issued a certificate of availability of funds, worth P5M.- H., Franco Construction Co. Inc. (HFCCI) was awarded to do the construction. - Cebu, through Mayor Duterte, entered into a contract with HFCCI- Sen. Osmena, the OIC of Cebut, ordered the suspension of the project and review of the contract by COA and he asked HFCCI for the cost of the project fulfilled.- HFCCI said it amounts to P2M.- HFCCI filed a civil case against Cebu.- Cebu said that the contract was null and void, declared by COA, therefore, the cost will be against the officer/s who entered into said contract.- Sen. Tomas Osmena entered into compromise agreement with HFCCI and was executed. (P1.5M)- But RTC & COA said the agreement is also void.- Petitioner argues that the decision of COA invalidating the contract between Cebu and HFCCI was void because it was already executed and fulfilled and that COA has no authority to declare a contract already executed void. - SC: COA has the power to examine and audit and settle expenditures of government.- According to the Auditing Code, the contract entered into by Mayor Duterte was void since the agreed cost, 8M was way beyond the appropriated funds of 5M, as certified by City Treasurer. - Since the contract was void, then the compromise agreement is also void and it cannot ratify a void contract. - So, the cost will be a personal liability of the officers who entered into the contract.

The participation by the City in negotiations for an amicablesettlement of a pending litigation and its eventual execution of a compromise agreement relative thereto, are indubitably within its authority and capacity as a public corporation, and a compromise of a civil suit in which it is involved as a party is a perfectly legitimate transaction, not only recognized but even encouraged by law. Thus, COA committed grave abuse of discretion when it disallowed the Citys appropriation of P30,000 made conformably with the compromise agreement

BUSTAMANTE VS COA- petitioner is the Regional Legal Counsel of NAPOCOR for the Northern Luzon Region Center- he was issued a government vehicle- pursuant to a NPC policy, petitioner asked for the transportation allowance- COA disallowed- petitioner alleged that NPC is not among the corporations that are covered by the policy, prohibiting transpo allowance to those who have motor vehicle of government- W/N COAs disallowance constitutes GADELEJ- No, because NPC is under the coverage of the law.- use of government vehicle and claim for transpo allowance are mutually exclusive. - conclusions of a Board of Directors of a government-owned and controlled corporation in safeguarding the proper use of the governments and peoples property cannot prevail over the constitutional mandate on COA.

OROCIO VS COA- As a General Counsel, Nepomucenos 5th indorsement cannot be considered a decision of COA, because he is not authorized to do so. - He should have just given a legal advice. - COA is a collegial body- COAs General Counsel cannot act for the Commission for he is not even a Commissioner.- General Counsel can only offer legal advice to aid COA in deciding a case.- To determine whether an expenditure of a government agency or instrumentality is irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant and unconscionable, the COA should not be bound by the opinion of the legal counsel of a particular agency. Legal counsel can only offer legal advice.

CALTEX PHILIPPINES VS COA- petitioner questions the authority of COA in disallowing petitioners claims for reimbursement from the OPSF- petitioners theory is that COA cannot disallow irregular, unnecessary, excessive payment but only promulgate auditing rules- SC: It is within COAs jurisdiction and authority to deny payments and reimbursements, which are disallowed by law. - Taxes do not arise from contracts nor depend upon the will of the taxpayer, rather, they are imposed by law. - Hence, there can be no offsetting of taxes against the claims that a taxpayer may have against the government. Money due the government, either in the form of taxes or other dues, will serve as its lifeblood and should be collected without hindrance.

POLLOSO VS GANGAN & COA- Napocor through its president hired an attorney, Atty. Sattore, without the requirement of a prior approval of the solgen, to perform a project related to the Leyte-Cebu and Leyte-Luzon interconnetion Projects of NPC- COA Unit Auditor Tan disallowed payment due to nonconformity to the required concurrence of Solgen and COA- petitioners argued that the circular requiring the approval of the solgen is unconstitutional for it restricts the practice of law- Circular not unconstitutional. - It was merely a safeguard to prevent irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant or unconscionable expenditures.- petitioner alleges that the circular prevents the payment of retainer fees, not the fee for legal services rendered - it does not distinguish whether or not the legal services to be performed involve an actual legal controversy or litigation- should not be given technical term

DBP VS COA - W/N COAs power to audit and examine the DBP is exclusive and precludes a concurrent audit of a private external auditor Public corporations may employ private auditors- Non exclusive: power to examine and audit framers intended it to be non-exclusive - Exclusive: define scope of audit, promulgate auditing rules, disallow unnecessary expenditure- COAs findings prevail over those of private auditors

PARRENO VS COA- Pareno served in AFP for 32 years- he retired with the rank of 2nd lieutenant - he availed and received a pension payment - he migrated to Hawaii and became a US citizen- AFP stopped his pension due to a law- petitioner filed a money claim before COA, but COA denied for lack of jurisdiction- SC: jurisdiction of COA over money claims against government does not include power to rule on the constitutionality of laws or its validity - COA can decide money claims based on law. But if a money claim is denied by a law, COA has no authority to pass judgment on the constitutionality of the law.

C. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS SECTION 1 1) There shall be a COMELEC composed of a Chairman and 6 Commissioners natural-born citizens of the Philippines at the time of their appointment at least 35 years old holders of a college degree must have not been candidates in the immediately preceding elections 2) The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President w/ the consent of Commission on Appointments for a term of 7 years without reappointment Of those 1st appointed: 3 members shall hold office for 7 years 2 members for 5 years last members for 3 years without reappointment Appointment to a vacancy shall be only for the unexpired term of the predecessor No member can be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity SECTION 2 The COMELEC shall have the following powers & functions: Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relating to the conduct of an: election plebiscite initiative referendum recall Exercise: exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to: elections qualifications returns of all elective: regional provincial city officials appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the COMELEC contests involving elective municipal and barangay officials shall be: final executory not appealable Decide all questions affecting elections except those involving the right to vote/suffrage including determination of: the no. and location of polling places appointment of election officials and inspectors registration of voters Deputize law enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of the government, including: the Armed Forces of the Philippines with the concurrence of the President for the exclusive purpose of ensuring: free orderly honest peaceful credible elections Register, after sufficient publication: political parties coalitions which in addition to other requirements must present their: platform or program of government and accredit citizens arms of the COMELEC the following shall not be registered: religious denominations and sects those which seek to achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means refuse to uphold and adhere to the Constitution supported by any foreign government Financial contributions from foreign governments and agencies to: political parties organizations coalitions candidates related to elections constitute interference in national affairs and, when accepted, shall be an additional ground for the cancellation of their registration with the Commission in addition to other penalties that may be prescribed by law File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative: petitions in court for inclusion or exclusion of voters investigate, and where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election laws including acts or omissions constituting election fraud offenses malpractices Recommend to Congress effective measures to minimize election spending including limitation of places where propaganda materials shall be posted prevent and penalize all forms of election frauds, offenses, malpractices and nuisance candidates Recommend to the President: the removal of any officer of employee it has deputized the imposition of any other disciplinary action for: violation or disregard of or disobedience to its directive order decision Submit to the President and Congress a comprehensive report on the conduct of each: election plebiscite initiative referendum recall SECTION 3 COMELEC: may sit en banc or in 2 divisions shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition of election cases, including 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 COMELEC en banc SECTION 4 The Commission may, during the election period: supervise or regulate the enjoyment or utilization of all franchises or permits for the operation of: transportation & other public utilities media of communication or information all: grants special privileges concessions granted by the: government or any subdivision agency instrumentality, including GOCC or its subsidiary Such supervision or regulation shall aim to: ensure equal: opportunity time space and the right to reply, including reasonable, equal rates for: public information campaigns forums among candidates in connection with the objective of holding: free orderly honest peaceful credible elections SECTION 5 No: pardon amnesty parole or suspension of sentence for violation of election laws rules regulations shall be granted by the President without the favorable recommendation of the Commission SECTION 6 A free and open party system shall be allowed to evolve according to the free choice of the people, subject to the provisions of this article. SECTION 7 No votes cast in favor of a political party, organization, or coalition shall be valid, except for those registered under the party-list system as provided in this Constitution. SECTION 8 Political parties organizations coalitions registered under the party-list system shall not be represented in the voters registration: boards of election inspectors boards of canvassers other similar bodies However, they shall be entitled to appoint poll watchers in accordance with law. SECTION 9 Unless otherwise fixed by the Commission in special cases the election period shall commence 90 days before the day of election and shall end 30 days thereafter. SECTION 10 Bona Fide candidates for any public office shall be free from any form of harassment and discrimination. SECTION 11 Funds certified by the Commission as necessary to defray the expenses for holding: regular and special elections plebiscites initiatives referenda recalls shall be provided in the regular or special appropriations and once approved shall be released automatically upon certification by the Chairman of the CommissionD. COMMISSION ON AUDIT SECTION 1 1) There shall be a COA composed of a Chairman and 2 Commissioners, who shall be: natural-born citizens of the Philippines at least 35 years od age certified public accountants with not less than 10 years of auditing experience members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years and must not have been candidates for any elective position in the lections immediately preceding their appointment At no time shall all members of the Commission belong to the same profession. 2) The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the COA for a term of 7 years without reappointment. Of those first appointed, the Chairman shall hold office for 7 years One Commissioner for 5 years the other Commissioner for 3 years without reappointment Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired portion of the term of the predecessor In no case shall any member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity SECTION 2 1) The COA shall have the: power authority and duty to: examine audit and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue receipts of expenditures or uses funds and property owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to the government, or any of its subdivisions agencies or instrumentalities including GOCC with original charters and on post-audit basis: a) constitutional bodies commissions offices that have been granted fiscal autonomy under this Constitution b) autonomous state colleges and universities c) other GOCC corporations and their subsidiaries d) such NGO entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly, or indirectly, from or through the government, which are required by law or the granting institution to submit to such audit as a condition of subsidy or equity However, where the internal control system of the audited agencies is inadequate, the Commission may adopt such measures, including temporary or special pre-audit, as are necessary and appropriate to correct the deficiencies. It shall keep the general accounts f the government and, for such period as may be provided by law, preserve the vouchers and other supporting papers pertaining thereto. 2) The Commission shall have exclusive authority, subject to the limitations in this Article, to: define the scope of its audit and examination establish the techniques and methods required therefor promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations including those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular unnecessary excessive extravagant unconscionable expenditures or uses of government funds and properties 3) No law shall be passed exempting any entity of the government or its subsidiary in any guise whatever, or any investment of public funds, from the jurisdiction of the COA. 4) The Commission shall submit to the President and the Congress within the time fixed by the law, an annual report covering the financial condition and operation of the: government its subdivisions agencies instrumentalities including GOCC NGO entities subject to its audit recommend measures necessary to improve their effectiveness and efficiency it shall submit such other reports as may be required by law