1 | a b r c . p o l l .

0 9 - 1 0 / c r y s

Survey of 2009-2010 SC Dec|s|ons
CLI1ICAL LAW
Dean LD VINCLN1 S. AL8ANC

8ILL CI kIGn1S
DUL kCCLSS

Lssence of due process |n adm|n|strat|ve
proceed|ngs.

Cnce agaln ln CaLus vs. CuallLy Pouse, lnc., eL. al., C.8. no. 136766, Aprll 16, 2009 had Lhe occaslon Lo say LhaL ln due
process, Lhe law lLself only requlres ample opporLunlLy Lo be heard". 1he essence of Lhls requlremenL as an elemenL of due
process ln admlnlsLraLlve proceedlngs ls Lhe chance Lo explaln one's slde. !urlsprudence has amply clarlfled LhaL admlnlsLraLlve due
process cannoL be fully equaLed wlLh due process ln Lhe sLrlcL [udlclal sense, (Concerned Cfflclals of MWSS vs. vasquez, 240 SC8A
302 (1993), and LhaL Lhere ls no vlolaLlon of due process even lf no formal or acLual hearlng was conducLed, provlded a parLy ls
glven a chance Lo explaln hls slde. WhaL ls frowned upon ls Lhe denlal of Lhe opporLunlLy Lo be heard. (AL vs. nL8C, 198 SC8A 748,
lellx 8. erez and AmanLe C. uorla vs. hlllpplne 1elegraph and 1elephone Company and !ose Luls SanLlago, C.8. no. 132048,
March 31, 2009).

DUL kCCLSS

O - 1be ootlce to oo employee wbo wos beloq tetmlooteJ metely stoteJ tbot be wos beloq JtoppeJ ftom tbe tolls. lt JlJ oot speclfy
tbe foctool ooJ leqol teosoos fot tetmlootloq tbe setvlces of tbe employee. ls tbls tbe ootlce tepolteJ to comply wltb Joe ptocess?
wby?

Answer: no. 1hls ls a vlolaLlon of due process slnce lL sLrlkes aL lLs essence. 1he opporLunlLy Lo be heard, or Lhe opporLunlLy Lo
adequaLely and lnLelllgenLly mounL a defense made agalnsL hlm was vlolaLed. Pe was compleLely lefL ln Lhe dark why hls servlces
were belng summarlly LermlnaLed. L8 v. aden, C.8. no. 137607, !uly 7, 2009).

Aspects of r|ght to secur|ty of tenure.

1he rlghL Lo securlLy of Lenure. ArLlcle lx (8), SecLlon 2(3) of Lhe 1987 ConsLlLuLlon expressly provldes LhaL no offlcer or
employee of Lhe clvll servlce shall be removed or suspended excepL for cause provlded by law." 1he consLlLuLlonal provlslon Joes
oot Jlstloqolsb betweeo o teqolot employee ooJ o ptobotloooty employee. (uaza v. Lugo, C.8. no. 168999, Aprll 30, 3008, 333
SC8A 332, 337-338).

1he consLlLuLlonal guaranLy of securlLy of Lenure ln Lhe clvll servlce has Lwo legal ramlflcaLlons. ln 1tlo v. cboltmoo lottlclo
5to. 1omos, et ol., lL was held LhaL Lhe prohlblLlon agalnsL suspenslon or dlsmlssal of an offlcer or employee of Lhe Clvll Servlce
excepL for cause provlded by law" ls a guaranty of both procedura| and substant|ve due process." noL only musL removal or
suspenslon be ln accordance wlLh Lhe ptoceJote ptesctlbeJ by law, buL also Lhey can only be made on Lhe basls of a vollJ coose
provlded by law."

rocedural due process baslcally requlres LhaL suspenslon or dlsmlssal comes only afLer noLlce and hearlng. 1hus, Lhe
mlnlmum requlremenLs of due process are: (1) LhaL Lhe employees ot offlcets most be lofotmeJ of tbe cbotqes ptefetteJ oqolost
tbem, and Lhe formal way by whlch Lhe employees or offlcers are lnformed ls by furnlshlng Lhem wlLh a copy of Lhe charges made
agalnsL Lhem, and (2) LhaL Lhey musL have a reasonable opporLunlLy Lo presenL Lhelr slde of Lhe maLLer, LhaL ls Lo say, Lhelr
defenses agalnsL Lhe charges and Lo presenL evldence ln supporL of Lhelr defenses.

SubsLanLlve due process on Lhe oLher hand requlres LhaL Lhe suspenslon or dlsmlssal be for cause." uelos 5ootos v.
Mollote,

besL expresses whaL ls fot coose ptovlJeJ by low.

lL means for reasons whlch Lhe law and sound publlc pollcy recognlze as sufflclenL for removal, LhaL ls legal cause,
and noL merely causes whlch Lhe appolnLlng power ln Lhe exerclse of dlscreLlon may deem sufflclenL. lL ls
lmplled LhaL offlcers may noL be removed aL Lhe mere wlll of Lhose vesLed wlLh Lhe power of removal or wlLhouL
cause. Moreover, Lhe cause musL relaLe Lo and affecL Lhe admlnlsLraLlon of Lhe offlce, and musL be resLrlcLed Lo
someLhlng of a subsLanLlal naLure dlrecLly affecLlng Lhe rlghLs and lnLeresLs of Lhe publlc. [Lmphasls supplled]

Deemed res|gned prov|s|on |s not v|o|at|ve of the
equa| protect|on c|ause.

C - Cn uecember 1, 2009, Lhe SC rendered a [udgmenL rullng as unconsLlLuLlonal Lhe Lhlrd paragraph of Sec. 13, 8A 9369, Sec. 66
of Lhe Cmnlbus LlecLlon Code and Sec. 4(a) of CCMLLLC 8esoluLlon no. 8678 malnly on Lhe ground LhaL Lhey vlolaLe Lhe equal
proLecLlon clause of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon and suffer from overbreadLh. 1he ueclslon paved Lhe way for appolnLlve publlc offlclals Lo

2 | a b r c . p o l l . 0 9 - 1 0 / c r y s

conLlnue dlscharglng Lhe powers, prerogaLlves and funcLlons of Lhelr offlce noLwlLhsLandlng Lhelr enLry lnLo Lhe pollLlcal arena. 1he
CCMLLLC and movanL-lnLervenors flled moLlons for reconslderaLlons and ln supporL of Lhe same, Lhey alleged:

(1) 1he assalled ueclslon ls conLrary Lo, and/or vlolaLlve of, Lhe consLlLuLlonal proscrlpLlon agalnsL Lhe parLlclpaLlon of
publlc appolnLlve offlclals and members of Lhe mlllLary ln parLlsan pollLlcal acLlvlLy,
(2) 1he assalled provlslons do noL vlolaLe Lhe equal proLecLlon clause when Lhey accord dlfferenLlal LreaLmenL Lo elecLlve
and appolnLlve offlclals, because such dlfferenLlal LreaLmenL resLs on maLerlal and subsLanLlal dlsLlncLlons and ls
germane Lo Lhe purposes of Lhe law,
(3) 1he assalled provlslons do noL suffer from Lhe lnflrmlLy of overbreadLh, and
(4) 1here ls a compelllng need Lo reverse Lhe assalled ueclslon, as publlc safeLy and lnLeresL demand such reversal.

1he moLlons for reconslderaLlon were granLed and hence, Lhe SC reversed Lhe uecember 1, 2009 ueclslon.

Intent of the Const|tut|on and the Law |n
proh|b|t|ng appo|nt|ve pub||c off|cers |n
part|c|pat|ng |n part|san po||t|ca| act|v|t|es.

SecLlon 4(a) of CCMLLLC 8esoluLlon 8678 ls a falLhful reflecLlon of Lhe presenL sLaLe of Lhe law and [urlsprudence on Lhe
maLLer, vlz.:

Incumbent Appo|nt|ve Cff|c|a|. - under SecLlon 13 of 8A 9369, whlch relLeraLes SecLlon 66 of Lhe Cmnlbus LlecLlon Code,
any person holdlng a publlc appolnLlve offlce or poslLlon, lncludlng acLlve members of Lhe Armed lorces of Lhe
hlllpplnes, and offlcers and employees ln governmenL-owned or -conLrolled corporaLlons, shall be consldered lpso focto
reslgned from hls offlce upon Lhe flllng of hls cerLlflcaLe of candldacy.

Incumbent L|ected Cff|c|a|. - upon Lhe oLher hand, pursuanL Lo SecLlon 14 of 8A 9006 or Lhe lalr LlecLlon AcL, whlch
repealed SecLlon 67 of Lhe Cmnlbus LlecLlon Code and rendered lneffecLlve SecLlon 11 of 8.A. 8436 lnsofar as lL
consldered an elecLed offlclal as reslgned only upon Lhe sLarL of Lhe campalgn perlod correspondlng Lo Lhe poslLlons for
whlch Lhey are runnlng, an elecLed offlclal ls noL deemed Lo have reslgned from hls offlce upon Lhe flllng of hls cerLlflcaLe
of candldacy for Lhe same or any oLher elecLed offlce or poslLlon. ln flne, an elecLed offlclal may run for anoLher poslLlon
wlLhouL forfelLlng hls seaL.

1hese laws and regulaLlons lmplemenL SecLlon 2(4), ArLlcle lx-8 of Lhe 1987 ConsLlLuLlon, whlch prohlblLs clvll servlce
offlcers and employees from engaglng ln any elecLloneerlng or parLlsan pollLlcal campalgn.

1he lnLenL of boLh Congress and Lhe framers of our ConsLlLuLlon Lo llmlL Lhe parLlclpaLlon of clvll servlce offlcers and
employees ln parLlsan pollLlcal acLlvlLles are Loo plaln Lo be mlsLaken.

8uL SecLlon 2(4), ArLlcle lx-8 of Lhe 1987 ConsLlLuLlon and Lhe lmplemenLlng sLaLuLes apply only Lo clvll servanLs holdlng
apo||t|ca| offlces. SLaLed dlfferenLly, the const|tut|ona| ban does not cover e|ected off|c|a|s, noLwlLhsLandlng Lhe facL LhaL [L]he
clvll servlce embraces all branches, subdlvlslons, lnsLrumenLallLles, and agencles of Lhe CovernmenL, lncludlng governmenL-
owned or conLrolled corporaLlons wlLh orlglnal charLers." (Sec. 2(1), ArLlcle lx-8, 1987 ConsLlLuLlon). 1hls ls because elecLed publlc
offlclals, by Lhe very naLure of Lhelr offlce, engage ln parLlsan pollLlcal acLlvlLles almosL all year round, even ouLslde of Lhe
campalgn perlod. ollLlcal parLlsanshlp ls Lhe lnevlLable essence of a pollLlcal offlce, elecLlve poslLlons lncluded.

Lxcept|on to proh|b|t|on |s the r|ght to vote.

1he prohlblLlon noLwlLhsLandlng, clvll servlce offlcers and employees are allowed Lo voLe, as well as express Lhelr vlews on
pollLlcal lssues, or menLlon Lhe names of cerLaln candldaLes for publlc offlce whom Lhey supporL.

Lqua| protect|on c|ause, not v|o|ated by the
deemed res|gned prov|s|on.

SecLlon 4(a) of 8esoluLlon 8678, SecLlon 66 of Lhe Cmnlbus LlecLlon Code, and Lhe second provlso ln Lhe Lhlrd paragraph
of SecLlon 13 of 8A 9369 are noL vlolaLlve of Lhe equal proLecLlon clause of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon. (larlnas, eL al. v. LxecuLlve SecreLary,
eL al., C.8. no. 147387, uecember 10, 2003, 417 SC8A 303).

ln Iar|as, Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of SecLlon 14 of Lhe lalr LlecLlon AcL, ln relaLlon Lo SecLlons 66 and 67 of Lhe Cmnlbus
LlecLlon Code, was assalled on Lhe ground, among oLhers, LhaL lL unduly dlscrlmlnaLes agalnsL appolnLlve offlclals. As SecLlon 14
repealed SecLlon 67 (l.e., Lhe deemed-reslgned provlslon ln respecL of elecLed offlclals) of Lhe Cmnlbus LlecLlon Code, elecLed
offlclals are no longer consldered lpso focto reslgned from Lhelr respecLlve offlces upon Lhelr flllng of cerLlflcaLes of candldacy. ln
conLrasL, slnce SecLlon 66 was noL repealed, Lhe llmlLaLlon on appolnLlve offlclals conLlnues Lo be operaLlve - Lhey are deemed
reslgned when Lhey flle Lhelr cerLlflcaLes of candldacy.

lL was held, however, LhaL Lhe legal dlchoLomy creaLed by Lhe LeglslaLure ls a reasonable classlflcaLlon, as Lhere are
maLerlal and slgnlflcanL dlsLlncLlons beLween Lhe Lwo classes of offlclals. ConsequenLly, Lhe conLenLlon LhaL SecLlon 14 of Lhe lalr

3 | a b r c . p o l l . 0 9 - 1 0 / c r y s

LlecLlon AcL, ln relaLlon Lo SecLlons 66 and 67 of Lhe Cmnlbus LlecLlon Code, lnfrlnged on Lhe equal proLecLlon clause of Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon, falled musLer. lL was ruled:
1he equal proLecLlon of Lhe law clause ln Lhe ConsLlLuLlon ls noL absoluLe, buL ls sub[ecL Lo
reasonable classlflcaLlon. lf Lhe grouplngs are characLerlzed by subsLanLlal dlsLlncLlons LhaL
make real dlfferences, one class may be LreaLed and regulaLed dlfferenLly from Lhe oLher. 1he
CourL has explalned Lhe naLure of Lhe equal proLecLlon guaranLee ln Lhls manner:

1he equal proLecLlon of Lhe law clause ls agalnsL undue favor and lndlvldual or class prlvllege,
as well as hosLlle dlscrlmlnaLlon or Lhe oppresslon of lnequallLy. lL ls noL lnLended Lo prohlblL
leglslaLlon whlch ls llmlLed elLher ln Lhe ob[ecL Lo whlch lL ls dlrecLed or by LerrlLory wlLhln
whlch lL ls Lo operaLe. lL does noL demand absoluLe equallLy among resldenLs, lL merely
requlres LhaL all persons shall be LreaLed allke, under llke clrcumsLances and condlLlons boLh as
Lo prlvlleges conferred and llablllLles enforced. 1he equal proLecLlon clause ls noL lnfrlnged by
leglslaLlon whlch applles only Lo Lhose persons falllng wlLhln a speclfled class, lf lL applles allke
Lo all persons wlLhln such class, and reasonable grounds exlsL for maklng a dlsLlncLlon beLween
Lhose who fall wlLhln such class and Lhose who do noL.

Substant|a| d|st|nct|ons between e|ect|ve and
appo|nt|ve off|c|a|s.

SubsLanLlal dlsLlncLlons clearly exlsL beLween elecLlve offlclals and appolnLlve offlclals. 1he former occupy Lhelr offlce by
vlrLue of Lhe mandaLe of Lhe elecLoraLe. 1hey are elecLed Lo an offlce for a deflnlLe Lerm and may be removed Lherefrom only upon
sLrlngenL condlLlons. Cn Lhe oLher hand, appolnLlve offlclals hold Lhelr offlce by vlrLue of Lhelr deslgnaLlon LhereLo by an
appolnLlng auLhorlLy. Some appolnLlve offlclals hold Lhelr offlce ln a permanenL capaclLy and are enLlLled Lo securlLy of Lenure
whlle oLhers serve aL Lhe pleasure of Lhe appolnLlng auLhorlLy.

AnoLher subsLanLlal dlsLlncLlon beLween Lhe Lwo seLs of offlclals ls LhaL under SecLlon 33, ChapLer 8, 1lLle l, SubsecLlon A.
Clvll Servlce Commlsslon, 8ook v of Lhe AdmlnlsLraLlve Code of 1987 (LxecuLlve Crder no. 292), appolnLlve offlclals, as offlcers and
employees ln Lhe clvll servlce, are sLrlcLly prohlblLed from engaglng ln any parLlsan pollLlcal acLlvlLy or Lake (slc) parL ln any elecLlon
excepL Lo voLe. under Lhe same provlslon, elecLlve offlclals, or offlcers or employees holdlng pollLlcal offlces, are obvlously
expressly allowed Lo Lake parL ln pollLlcal and elecLoral acLlvlLles.

8y repeallng SecLlon 67 buL reLalnlng SecLlon 66 of Lhe Cmnlbus LlecLlon Code, Lhe leglslaLors deemed lL proper Lo LreaL
Lhese Lwo classes of offlclals dlfferenLly wlLh respecL Lo Lhe effecL on Lhelr Lenure ln Lhe offlce of Lhe flllng of Lhe cerLlflcaLes of
candldacy for any poslLlon oLher Lhan Lhose occupled by Lhem. Agaln, lL ls noL wlLhln Lhe power of Lhe CourL Lo pass upon or look
lnLo Lhe wlsdom of Lhls classlflcaLlon.

C|ass|f|cat|on Germane to the urposes of the Law

1he Iar|as rullng on Lhe equal proLecLlon challenge sLands on solld ground even lf reexamlned.

1o sLarL wlLh, Lhe equal proLecLlon clause does noL requlre Lhe unlversal appllcaLlon of Lhe laws Lo all persons or Lhlngs
wlLhouL dlsLlncLlon. (hll !udges Assn., eL al. v. rado, eL al., C.8. no. 103371, november 11, 1993, 227 SC8A 712). WhaL lL slmply
requlres ls equallLy among equals as deLermlned accordlng Lo a valld classlflcaLlon. 1he LesL developed by [urlsprudence here and
yonder ls LhaL of reasonableness, (n v. ue Cuzman, eL al., C.8. no. 106724, lebruary 9, 1994, 229 SC8A 801) whlch has four
requlslLes:

(1) 1he classlflcaLlon resLs on subsLanLlal dlsLlncLlons,
(2) lL ls germane Lo Lhe purposes of Lhe law,
(3) lL ls noL llmlLed Lo exlsLlng condlLlons only, and
(4) lL applles equally Lo all members of Lhe same class. (eople v. CayaL, 68 hll. 12 (1939).

1he assalled ueclslon readlly acknowledged LhaL Lhese deemed-reslgned provlslons saLlsfy Lhe flrsL, Lhlrd and fourLh
requlslLes of reasonableness. lL, however, proffers Lhe dublous concluslon LhaL Lhe dlfferenLlal LreaLmenL of appolnLlve offlclals vls-
a-vls elecLed offlclals ls noL germane Lo Lhe purpose of Lhe law, because wheLher one holds an appolnLlve offlce or an elecLlve
one, Lhe evlls soughL Lo be prevenLed by Lhe measure remaln.

1he CourL cannoL equallze Lhe playlng fleld" by lnvalldaLlng provlslons of law LhaL seek Lo resLraln Lhe evlls from runnlng
rloL. under Lhe preLexL of equal proLecLlon, lL would favor a slLuaLlon ln whlch Lhe evlls are unconflned and vagranL, exlsLlng aL Lhe
behesL of boLh appolnLlve and elecLed offlclals, over anoLher ln whlch a slgnlflcanL porLlon Lhereof ls conLalned. 1he absurdlLy of
LhaL poslLlon ls self-evldenL.

Deemed res|gned prov|s|on serves governmenta|
|nterests.

1he provlslons challenged ln Lhe case aL bar, are noL vlolaLlve of Lhe equal proLecLlon clause. 1he deemed-reslgned
provlslons subsLanLlally serve governmenLal lnLeresLs (l.e., (l) efflclenL clvll servlce falLhful Lo Lhe governmenL and Lhe people raLher

4 | a b r c . p o l l . 0 9 - 1 0 / c r y s

Lhan Lo parLy, (ll) avoldance of Lhe appearance of pollLlcal [usLlce" as Lo pollcy, (lll) avoldance of Lhe danger of a powerful pollLlcal
machlne, and (lv) ensurlng LhaL employees achleve advancemenL on Lhelr merlLs and LhaL Lhey be free from boLh coerclon and Lhe
prospecL of favor from pollLlcal acLlvlLy. 1hese are lnLeresLs LhaL are lmporLanL enough Lo ouLwelgh Lhe non-fundamenLal rlghL of
appolnLlve offlclals and employees Lo seek elecLlve offlce.

I|||ng of cert|f|cate of cand|dacy |s engag|ng |n part|san po||t|ca| act|v|ty.

O - wbot ls tbe effect lf o petsoo bolJloq oppolotlve posltloo lo qovetomeot flles bls cettlflcote of cooJlJocy? xplolo.

Answer: 1he flllng of a CerLlflcaLe of Candldacy for an elecLlve poslLlon ls, by Lhe very naLure of Lhe acL, an elecLloneerlng or
parLlsan pollLlcal parLy.

1wo provlslons of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon, Laken LogeLher, mandaLe LhaL clvll servlce employees cannoL engage ln any
elecLloneerlng or parLlsan pollLlcal acLlvlLy excepL Lo voLe. 1hus, Lhe ConsLlLuLlon provldes:

no offlcer or employee ln Lhe clvll servlce shall engage, dlrecLly or lndlrecLly, ln any
elecLloneerlng or parLlsan pollLlcal acLlvlLy. (SecLlon 2(4), ArLlcle lx-8 of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon).

no member of Lhe mlllLary shall engage, dlrecLly or lndlrecLly, ln any parLlsan pollLlcal
acLlvlLy, excepL Lo voLe. (SecLlon 3(3), ArLlcle lx-8 of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon).

1he exerclse of Lhe rlghL Lo voLe ls Lhe only non-parLlsan pollLlcal acLlvlLy a clLlzen can do. All oLher pollLlcal acLlvlLles are
deemed parLlsan. As a maLLer of facL, Lhe only non-parLlsan pollLlcal acLlvlLy one can engage ln as a clLlzen ls voLlng.

lndlspuLably, any pollLlcal acLlvlLy excepL Lo voLe ls a parLlsan pollLlcal acLlvlLy. SecLlon 79(b) of Lhe Cmnlbus LlecLlon Code
lmplemenLs Lhls by declarlng LhaL any acL deslgned Lo elecL or promoLe Lhe elecLlon of a candldaLe ls an elecLloneerlng or parLlsan
pollLlcal acLlvlLy, Lhus:

1he Lerm elecLlon campalgn" or parLlsan pollLlcal acLlvlLy" refers Lo an acL deslgned
Lo promoLe Lhe elecLlon or defeaL of a parLlcular candldaLe or candldaLes Lo a publlc offlce x x
x." (CulnLo, eL al. v. CCMLLLC, C.8. no. 189698, lebruary 22, 2010).

SLAkCn & SLI2UkL

Mean|ng of parapherna||a |n search warrant.

O - A seotcb wottoot wos lssoeJ ootbotlzloq tbe tokloq of sbobo ooJ potopbetoollo ooly. 1be pollce offlcets took loJys wollet,
cosb, qtloJet, cometo, etc. ls tbe oct ptopet? wby?

Answer: no. As a rule, only Lhe personal properLles descrlbed ln Lhe search warranL may be selzed by Lhe auLhorlLles. (eople vs.
Co, 411 SC8A 81 (2003). 8y Lhe prlnclple of ejosJem qeoetls, where a sLaLuLe descrlbes Lhlngs of a parLlcular class or klnd
accompanled by words of a generlc characLer, Lhe generlc word wlll usually be llmlLed Lo Lhlngs of a slmllar naLure wlLh Lhose
parLlcularly enumeraLed, unless Lhere be someLhlng ln Lhe conLexL of Lhe sLaLemenL whlch would repel such lnference.

CerLalnly, Lhe lady's walleL, cash, grlnder, camera, componenL, speakers, elecLrlc planer, [lgsaw, elecLrlc LesLer, saws,
hammer, drlll and bolo were noL encompassed by Lhe word paraphernalla as Lhey bear no relaLlon Lo Lhe use or manufacLure of
drugs. ln selzlng Lhe sald lLems Lhen, Lhe pollce offlcers exerclsed Lhelr own dlscreLlon and deLermlned for Lhemselves whlch lLems
ln appellanL's resldence Lhey belleved were proceeds of Lhe crlme" or means of commlLLlng Lhe offense." 1hls ls absoluLely
lmpermlsslble. (eople vs. Co)

1he purpose of Lhe consLlLuLlonal requlremenL LhaL Lhe arLlcles Lo be selzed be parLlcularly descrlbed ln Lhe warranL ls Lo
llmlL Lhe Lhlngs Lo be Laken Lo Lhose, and only Lhose parLlcularly descrlbed ln Lhe search warranL - Lo leave Lhe offlcers of Lhe law
wlLh no dlscreLlon regardlng whaL arLlcles Lhey should selze. A search warranL ls noL a sweeplng auLhorlng empowerlng a raldlng
parLy Lo underLake a flshlng expedlLlon Lo conflscaLe any and all klnds of evldence or arLlcles relaLlng Lo a crlme. Accordlngly, Lhe
ob[ecLs Laken whlch were noL speclfled ln Lhe search warranL should be resLored Lo appellanL. (eople vs. 8aul nunez, C.8. no.
177148, !une 30, 2009).

IkLLDCM CI LkkLSSICN

Cbscene |anguage |s an unprotected speech.

ln Lllseo Sorlano vs. Laguardla, eL al., C.8. no. 164783, Sorlano vs. M18C8, eL al., C.8. no. 163636, Aprll 29, 2009 (velasco,
!), Lhe respondenL lssued an order suspendlng Lhe program of Sorlano due Lo cerLaln uLLerances he made ln hls Lelevlslon show,
Ang uaLlng uaan. Pe uLLered Lhe followlng:

LehlLlmong anak ng demonyo, slnungallng.


S | a b r c . p o l l . 0 9 - 1 0 / c r y s

Cago ka Lalaga Mlchael, masahol ka pa sa puLang babae o dl ba. ?ung puLang babae ang
gumagana lang doon yung lbaba, (dlLo) kay Mlchael ang gumagana ang lLaas, o dl ba! C,
masahol pa sa puLang babae yan. Sabl ng lola ko masahol pa sa puLang babae yan. Sobra ang
kaslnungallngan ng mga demonyong lLo. x x x

Pence, a complalnL was flled wlLh Lhe M18C8 where afLer hearlngs were conducLed, an order of suspenslon of hls program was
lssued. Pe flled a speclal clvll acLlon for cerLlorarl and prohlblLlon lnvoklng Lhe followlng lssues:

1. lL vlolaLed Lhe equal proLecLlon clause,
2. lL vlolaLed Lhe freedom of rellglon clause,
3. lL vlolaLed Lhe freedom of speech cluse.

(1) Cn Lhe flrsL lssue, equal proLecLlon clause.

Pe conLended LhaL Lhe M18C8 denled hlm hls rlghL Lo Lhe equal proLecLlon of Lhe law, argulng LhaL, owlng Lo Lhe
prevenLlve suspenslon order, he was unable Lo answer Lhe crlLlclsms comlng from Lhe lnC mlnlsLers. ls hls conLenLlon correcL?
Why?

Answer: no. Pls poslLlon does noL persuade. 1he equal proLecLlon clause demands LhaL all persons sub[ecL Lo leglslaLlon should be
LreaLed allke, under llke clrcumsLances and condlLlons boLh ln Lhe prlvlleges conferred and llablllLles lmposed". lL guards agalnsL
undue favor and lndlvldual prlvllege as well as hosLlle dlscrlmlnaLlon. (lchong vs. Pernandez, 101 hll. 1133 (1937). Surely,
peLlLloner cannoL, under Lhe premlses, place hlmself ln Lhe same shoes as Lhe lnC mlnlsLers, who, for one, are noL faclng
admlnlsLraLlve complalnLs before Lhe M18C8. lor anoLher, he offered no proof LhaL Lhe sald mlnlsLers, ln Lhelr 1v programs, used
language slmllar Lo LhaL whlch he used ln hls own, necesslLaLlng Lhe M18C8's dlsclpllnary acLlon. lf Lhe lmmedlaLe resulL of Lhe
prevenLlve suspenslon order ls LhaL peLlLloner remalns Lemporarlly gagged and ls unable Lo answer hls crlLlcs, Lhls does noL
become a deprlvaLlon of Lhe equal proLecLlon guaranLee. Such suspenslon ls noL an lndlcaLlon of oppresslve lnequallLy.

(2) Cn Lhe second lssue, freedom of rellglon.

Pe ln[ecLed Lhe noLlon of rellglous freedom, submlLLlng LhaL whaL he uLLered was rellglous speech, addlng LhaL words llke
puLang babae" were sald ln Lhe exerclse of hls rellglous freedom. 8ule on Lhe conLenLlon. Lxplaln.

Answer: 1he argumenL has no merlL.
1here ls noLhlng ln hls sLaLemenLs sub[ecL of Lhe complalnLs expresslng any parLlcular rellglous bellef, noLhlng furLherlng
hls avowed evangellcal mlsslon. 1he facL LhaL he came ouL wlLh hls sLaLemenLs ln a Lelevlsed blble exposlLlon program does noL
auLomaLlcally accord Lhem Lhe characLer of a rellglous dlscourse. laln and slmple lnsulLs dlrecLed aL anoLher person cannoL be
elevaLed Lo Lhe sLaLus of rellglous speech. Pe was only moved by anger and Lhe need Lo seek reLrlbuLlon, noL by any rellglous
convlcLlon. Pls clalm, assumlng lLs veraclLy, LhaL some lnC mlnlsLers dlsLorLed hls sLaLemenLs respecLlng amounLs Ang uaLlng uaan
owed Lo a 1v sLaLlon does noL converL Lhe foul language used ln reLallaLlon as rellglous speech. lL cannoL be accepLed LhaL
peLlLloner made hls sLaLemenLs ln defense of hls repuLaLlon and rellglon, as Lhey consLlLuLe no lnLelllglble defense or refuLaLlon of
Lhe alleged lles belng spread by a rlval rellglous group. 1hey slmply lllusLraLe LhaL he had descended Lo Lhe level of name-calllng
and foul-language dlscourse. Pe could have chosen Lo conLradlcL and dlsprove hls deLracLors, buL opLed for Lhe low road.

(3) Cn Lhe Lhlrd lssue, freedom of speech.

Pe conLended LhaL Lhe 20-day suspenslon order, was an unconsLlLuLlonal abrldgemenL of Lhe freedom of speech and
expresslon and an lmpermlsslble prlor resLralnL. ls Lhe conLenLlon correcL? Why?

Answer: no. lL ls seLLled LhaL expresslons by means of newspapers, radlo, Lelevlslon and moLlon plcLures come wlLhln Lhe broad
proLecLlon of Lhe free speech and expresslon clause. Lach meLhod Lhough, because of lLs dlsslmllar presence ln Lhe llves of people
and accesslblllLy Lo chlldren, Lends Lo presenL lLs own problems ln Lhe area of free speech proLecLlon, wlLh broadcasL medla, of all
forms of communlcaLlon, en[oylng a lesser degree of proLecLlon. (LasLern 8roadcasLlng Corp. vs. uans, !r., 137 SC8A 628 (1983).
!usL as seLLled ls Lhe rule LhaL resLrlcLlons, be lL ln Lhe form of prlor resLralnL, e.g., [udlclal ln[uncLlon agalnsL publlcaLlon or LhreaL of
cancellaLlon of llcense/franchlse, or subsequenL llablllLy, wheLher ln llbel and damage sulLs, prosecuLlon for sedlLlon, or conLempL
proceedlngs, are anaLhema Lo Lhe freedom of expresslon. rlor resLralnL means offlclal governmenL resLrlcLlons on Lhe press or
oLher forms of expresslon ln advance of acLual publlcaLlon or dlssemlnaLlon. 1he freedom of expresslon, as wlLh Lhe oLher
freedoms encased ln Lhe 8lll of 8lghLs, ls, however, noL absoluLe. lL may be regulaLed Lo some exLenL Lo serve lmporLanL publlc
lnLeresLs, some forms of speech noL belng proLecLed. As has been held, Lhe llmlLs of Lhe freedom of expresslon are reached when
Lhe expresslon Louches upon maLLers of essenLlally prlvaLe concern. (Lagunsad vs. SoLo vda. ue Conzales, 92 SC8A 476). ln Lhe ofL-
quoLed expresslon of !usLlce Polmes, Lhe consLlLuLlonal guaranLee obvlously was noL lnLended Lo glve lmmunlLy for every posslble
use of language." (1rohwerk vs. u.S., 249 u.S. 204 (1919). lrom Lucas vs. 8oyo comes Lhls llne: 1he freedom Lo express one's
senLlmenLs and bellef does noL granL one Lhe llcense Lo vlllfy ln publlc Lhe honor and lnLegrlLy of anoLher. Any senLlmenLs musL be
expressed wlLhln Lhe proper forum and wlLh proper regard for Lhe rlghLs of oLhers. (344 SC8A 481 (2000).

O - ne ossetteJ tbot bls ottetooce lo poestloo ls o ptotecteJ fotm of speecb. ls bls cooteotloo cottect? wby?


6 | a b r c . p o l l . 0 9 - 1 0 / c r y s

Answer: no. unproLecLed speech or low-value expresslon refers Lo llbelous sLaLemenLs, obscenlLy or pornography, false or
mlsleadlng adverLlsemenL, lnsulLlng or flghLlng words", l.e., Lhose whlch by Lhelr very uLLerance lnfllcL ln[ury or Lend Lo lnclLe an
lmmedlaLe breach of peace and expresslon endangerlng naLlonal securlLy.

Pls sLaLemenL can be LreaLed as obscene, aL leasL wlLh respecL Lo Lhe average chlld. Pence, lL ls, ln LhaL conLexL,
unproLecLed speech.

1hey can be vlewed as flgures of speech or merely a play on words. ln Lhe conLexL Lhey were used, Lhey may noL appeal Lo
Lhe prurlenL lnLeresLs of an adulL. 1he problem wlLh Lhe challenged sLaLemenLs ls LhaL Lhey were uLLered ln a 1v program LhaL ls
raLed C" or for general vlewershlp, and ln a Llme sloL LhaL would llkely reach even Lhe eyes and ears of chlldren.

Whlle adulLs may have undersLood LhaL Lhe Lerms Lhus used were noL Lo be Laken llLerally, chlldren could hardly be
expecLed Lo have Lhe same dlscernmenL. WlLhouL parenLal guldance, Lhe unbrldled use of such language as LhaL of peLlLloner ln a
Lelevlslon broadcasL could corrupL lmpresslonable young mlnds. 1he Lerm puLang babae" means a female prosLlLuLe", a Lerm
wholly lnapproprlaLe for chlldren, who could look lL up ln a dlcLlonary and [usL geL llLeral meanlng, mlsslng Lhe conLexL wlLhln
whlch lL was used. eLlLloner furLher used Lhe Lerms, ang gumagana lang doon yung lbaba," maklng reference Lo Lhe female
sexual organ and how a female prosLlLuLe uses lL ln her Lrade, Lhen sLaLlng LhaL Sandoval was worse LhaL LhaL by uslng hls mouLh ln
a slmllar manner. Chlldren could be moLlvaLed by curloslLy and ask Lhe meanlng of whaL peLlLloner sald, also wlLhouL placlng Lhe
phrase ln conLexL. 1hey may be lnqulslLlve as Lo why Sandoval ls dlfferenL from a female prosLlLuLe and Lhe reasons for Lhe
dlsslmllarlLy. And upon learnlng Lhe meanlngs of Lhe words used, young mlnds, wlLhouL Lhe guldance of an adulL, may, from Lhelr
end, vlew Lhls klnd of lndecenL speech as obscene, lf Lhey Lake Lhese words llLerally and use Lhem ln Lhelr own speech or form Lhelr
own ldeas on Lhe maLLer. ln Lhls parLlcular case, where chlldren had Lhe opporLunlLy Lo hear peLlLloner's words, when speaklng of
Lhe average person ln Lhe LesL of obscenlLy, Lhe CourL ls speaklng of Lhe average chlld, noL Lhe average adulL. 1he average chlld
may noL have Lhe adulL's grasp of flgures of speech, and may lack Lhe undersLandlng LhaL language may be colorful, and words may
convey more Lhan Lhe llLeral meanlng. undenlably Lhe sub[ecL speech ls very suggesLlve of a female sexual organ and lLs funcLlon
as such. ln Lhls sense, Lhe uLLerances are obscene and noL enLlLled Lo proLecLlon under Lhe umbrella of freedom of speech.

Lven lf Lhe remarks are noL obscene buL merely lndecenL speech, sLlll he cannoL avall hlmself of Lhe consLlLuLlonal
proLecLlon of free speech. Sald sLaLemenLs were made ln a medlum easlly accesslble Lo chlldren. WlLh respecL Lo Lhe young mlnds,
sald uLLerances are Lo be LreaLed as unproLecLed speech.

Content based and content neutra| regu|at|on.

O - ls tbete o Jlstloctloo betweeo teqolotloo ot testtlctloo of ptotecteJ speecb tbot ls cooteot-boseJ ooJ tbot wblcb ls cooteot-
oeottol?

Answer: ?es. A conLenL-based resLralnL ls almed aL Lhe conLenLs or ldea of Lhe expresslon, whereas a conLenL-neuLral resLralnL
lnLends Lo regulaLe Lhe Llme, place, and manner of Lhe expresslon under well-deflned sLandards Lallored Lo serve a compelllng
sLaLe lnLeresL, wlLhouL resLralnL on Lhe message of Lhe expresslon. CourLs sub[ecL conLenL-based resLralnL Lo sLrlcL scruLlny.
(Chavez vs. Conzales, 343 SC8A 441 (2008).

O - wby ls tbe sospeosloo by tbe M1kc8 o petmlsslble testtlctloo? xplolo.

Answer: lL ls due Lo Lhe followlng lnLerplaylng facLors: llrsL, Lhe lndecenL speech was made vla Lelevlslon, a pervaslve medlum LhaL
Lo borrow from Conzales vs. kalaw kaLlgbak, 137 SC8A 717 (1983) easlly reaches every home where Lhere ls a seL and where
chlldren wlll llkely be among Lhe avld vlewers of Lhe programs Lhereln shown", second, Lhe broadcasL was alred aL Lhe Llme of Lhe
day when Lhere was a reasonable rlsk LhaL chlldren mlghL be ln Lhe audlence, and Lhlrd, peLlLloner uLLered hls speech on a C" or
for general paLronage" raLed program. under Sec. 2(a) of ChapLer lv of Lhe l88 of Lhe M18C8, a show for general paLronage ls
sulLable for all ages", meanlng LhaL Lhe "maLerlal for Lelevlslon ln Lhe [udgmenL of Lhe board, does noL conLaln anyLhlng
unsulLable for chlldren and mlnors, and may be vlewed wlLhouL adulL guldance or supervlslon." 1he words peLlLloner used were,
by any clvlllzed norm, clearly noL sulLable for chlldren. Where a language ls caLegorlzed as lndecenL, as ln peLlLloner's uLLerances
on a general paLronage raLed 1v program, lL may be readlly proscrlbed as unproLecLed speech.

O - ne ossetteJ tbot bls ottetooces most pteseot o cleot ooJ pteseot Jooqet of btloqloq oboot o sobstootlve evll tbe 5tote bos tlqbt
ooJ Joty to pteveot ooJ socb Jooqet most be qtove ooJ lmmloeot. ls tbe cooteotloo cottect? wby?

Answer: no. Pls lnvocaLlon of Lhe clear and presenL danger docLrlne, arguably Lhe mosL permlsslve of speech LesLs, would noL avall
hlm any rellef, for Lhe appllcaLlon of sald LesL ls uncalled for under Lhe premlses. 1he docLrlne, flrsL formulaLed by !usLlce Polmes,
accords proLecLlon for uLLerances so LhaL Lhe prlnLed or spoken words may noL be sub[ecL Lo prlor resLralnL or subsequenL
punlshmenL unless lLs expresslon creaLes a clear and presenL danger of brlnglng abouL a subsLanLlal evll whlch Lhe governmenL has
Lhe power Lo prohlblL. (16A AM. !ur. 2d ConsLlLuLlonal Law Sec. 493, Schenck vs. u.S. 249 u.S. 47). under Lhe docLrlne, freedom of
speech and of press ls suscepLlble of resLrlcLlon when and only when necessary Lo prevenL grave and lmmedlaLe danger Lo
lnLeresLs whlch Lhe governmenL may lawfully proLecL. As lL were, sald docLrlne evolved ln Lhe conLexL of prosecuLlons for rebelllon
and oLher crlmes lnvolvlng Lhe overLhrow of governmenL. lL was orlglnally deslgned Lo deLermlne Lhe laLlLude whlch should be
glven Lo speech LhaL espouses anLl-governmenL acLlon, or Lo have serlous and subsLanLlal deleLerlous consequences on Lhe
securlLy and publlc order of Lhe communlLy. (Conzales vs. CCMLLLC, 27 SC8A 833 (1969). 1he clear and presenL danger rule has
been applled Lo Lhls [urlsdlcLlon. As a sLandard of llmlLaLlon on free speech and press, however, Lhe clear and presenL danger LesL

7 | a b r c . p o l l . 0 9 - 1 0 / c r y s

ls noL a maglc lncanLaLlon LhaL wlpes ouL all problems and does away wlLh analysls and [udgmenL ln Lhe LesLlng of Lhe leglLlmacy of
clalms Lo free speech and whlch compels a courL Lo release a defendanL from llablllLy Lhe momenL Lhe docLrlne ls lnvoked, absenL
proof of lmmlnenL caLasLrophlc dlsasLer. (Zaldlvar vs. Conzales, 170 SC8A 1 (1989). As observed ln LasLern 8roadcasLlng
CorporaLlon, Lhe clear and presenL danger LesL does noL lend lLself Lo a slmpllsLlc and all embraclng lnLerpreLaLlon appllcable Lo all
uLLerances ln all forums." (137 SC8A 628 (1983).
O - ls tbe cleot ooJ pteseot Jooqet tbe ooly test to testtolo fotms of speecb? xplolo.

Answer: no. 1he clear and presenL danger docLrlne ls noL Lhe only LesL whlch has been applled by Lhe courLs. Cenerally, sald
docLrlne ls applled Lo cases lnvolvlng Lhe overLhrow of Lhe governmenL and even oLher evlls whlch do noL clearly undermlne
naLlonal securlLy. Slnce noL all evlls can be measured ln Lerms of proxlmlLy and degree" Lhe CourL, however, ln several cases -
Ayer roducLlons vs. Capulong, 160 SC8A 861 (1988) and Conzales vs. CCMLLLC, 28 SC8A 833 (1969) applled Lhe balanclng of
lnLeresLs LesL. ln Conzales vs. CCMLLLC, lL was sald LhaL where Lhe leglslaLlon under consLlLuLlonal aLLack lnLerferes wlLh Lhe
freedom of speech and assembly ln a more generallzed way and where Lhe effecL of Lhe speech and assembly ln Lerms of Lhe
probablllLy of reallzaLlon of a speclflc danger ls noL suscepLlble even of lmpresslonlsLlc calculaLlon," Lhen Lhe balanclng lnLeresLs"
LesL can be applled.

1he CourL explalned also ln Conzales vs. CCMLLLC Lhe balanclng lnLeresLs" LesL:

When parLlcular conducL ls regulaLed ln Lhe lnLeresL of publlc order, and Lhe regulaLlon resulLs ln an
lndlrecL, condlLlonal, parLlal abrldgmenL of speech, Lhe duLy of Lhe courLs ls Lo deLermlne whlch of Lhe Lwo
confllcLlng lnLeresLs demands Lhe greaLer proLecLlon under Lhe parLlcular clrcumsLances presenLed. We musL,
Lherefore, underLake Lhe dellcaLe and dlfflculL Lask Lo welgh Lhe clrcumsLances and Lo appralse Lhe
subsLanLlallLy of Lhe reasons advance ln supporL of Lhe regulaLlon of Lhe free en[oymenL of rlghLs.

ln enunclaLlng sLandard premlsed on a [udlclal balanclng of Lhe confllcLlng soclal values and lndlvldual
lnLeresLs compeLlng for ascendancy ln leglslaLlon whlch resLrlcLs expresslon, Lhe courL ln uouds lald Lhe basls for
whaL has been called Lhe balanclng-of-lnLeresLs" LesL whlch has found appllcaLlon ln more recenL declslons of
Lhe u.S. Supreme CourL. 8rlefly sLaLed, Lhe balanclng" LesL requlres a courL Lo Lake consclous and deLalled
conslderaLlon of Lhe lnLerplay of lnLeresLs observable ln a glven slLuaLlon or Lype of slLuaLlon.

AlLhough Lhe urgency of Lhe publlc lnLeresL soughL Lo be secured by Congresslonal power resLrlcLlng Lhe
lndlvldual's freedom, and Lhe soclal lmporLance and value of Lhe freedom so resLrlcLed, are Lo be [udged ln Lhe
concreLe, noL on Lhe basls of absLracLlons", a wlde range of facLors are necessarlly relevanL ln ascerLalnlng Lhe
polnL or llne of equlllbrlum. Among Lhese are (a) Lhe soclal value and lmporLance of Lhe speclflc aspecL of Lhe
parLlcular freedom resLrlcLed by Lhe leglslaLlon, (b) Lhe speclflc LhrusL of Lhe resLrlcLlon, l.e., wheLher Lhe
resLrlcLlon ls dlrecL or lndlrecL, wheLher or noL Lhe persons affecLed are few, (c) Lhe value and lmporLance of Lhe
publlc lnLeresL soughL Lo be secured by Lhe leglslaLlon - Lhe reference here ls Lo Lhe naLure and gravlLy of Lhe evll
whlch Congress seeks Lo prevenL, (d) wheLher Lhe speclflc resLrlcLlon decreed by Congress ls reasonably
approprlaLe and necessary for Lhe proLecLlon of such publlc lnLeresL, and (e) wheLher Lhe necessary safeguardlng
of Lhe publlc lnLeresL lnvolved may be achleved by some oLher measure less resLrlcLlve of Lhe proLecLed freedom.

1he balanclng of lnLeresL LesL, Lo borrow from rofessor kauper, resLs on Lhe Lheory LhaL lL ls Lhe courL's funcLlon ln a case
before lL when lL flnds publlc lnLeresLs served by leglslaLlon, on Lhe one hand, and Lhe free expresslon clause affecLed by lL, on Lhe
oLher, Lo balance one agalnsL Lhe oLher and arrlve aL a [udgmenL where Lhe greaLer welghL shall be placed. lf, on balance, lL
appears LhaL Lhe publlc lnLeresL served by resLrlcLlve leglslaLlon ls of such naLure LhaL lL ouLwelghs Lhe abrldgmenL of freedom,
Lhen Lhe courL wlll flnd Lhe leglslaLed valld. ln shorL, Lhe balance-of-lnLeresLs Lheory resLs on Lhe basls LhaL consLlLuLlonal freedoms
are noL absoluLe, noL even Lhose sLaLed ln Lhe free speech and expresslon clause, and LhaL Lhey may be abrldged Lo some exLenL Lo
serve approprlaLe and lmporLanL lnLeresLs. 1o Lhe mlnd of Lhe CourL, Lhe balanclng of lnLeresL docLrlne ls Lhe more approprlaLe
LesL Lo follow.

O - lo tbls cose, tbe ossettloo by petltlooet of bls eojoymeot of bls fteeJom of speecb ls tooqeJ oqolost tbe Joty of tbe qovetomeot
to ptotect ooJ ptomote tbe Jevelopmeot ooJ welfote of tbe yootb. wblcb wlll ptevoll? xplolo.

Answer: 1he governmenL's lnLeresL Lo proLecL and promoLe Lhe lnLeresLs and welfare of Lhe chlldren adequaLely buLLresses Lhe
reasonable curLallmenL and valld resLralnL on Lhe suspenslon of hls program.

no doubL, one of Lhe fundamenLal and mosL vlLal rlghLs granLed Lo clLlzens of a SLaLe ls Lhe freedom of speech or
expresslon, for wlLhouL Lhe en[oymenL of such rlghL, a free, sLable, effecLlve, and progresslve democraLlc sLaLed would be dlfflculL
Lo aLLaln. Arrayed agalnsL Lhe freedom of speech ls Lhe rlghL of Lhe youLh Lo Lhelr moral, splrlLual, lnLellecLual, and soclal belng
whlch Lhe SLaLe ls consLlLuLlonally Lasked Lo promoLe and proLecL. Moreover, Lhe SLaLe ls also mandaLed Lo recognlze and supporL
Lhe vlLal role of Lhe youLh ln naLlon bulldlng as lald down ln Sec. 13, ArLlcle ll of Lhe 1987 ConsLlLuLlon.
1he ConsLlLuLlon has, Lherefore, lmposed Lhe sacred obllgaLlon and responslblllLy on Lhe SLaLe Lo provlde proLecLlon Lo
Lhe youLh agalnsL lllegal or lmproper acLlvlLles whlch may pre[udlce Lhelr general well-belng.

lndlspuLably, Lhe SLaLe has a compelllng lnLeresL ln exLendlng soclal proLecLlon Lo mlnors agalnsL all forms of neglecL,
explolLaLlon, and lmmorallLy whlch may polluLe lnnocenL mlnds. lL has a compelllng lnLeresL ln helplng parenLs, Lhrough regulaLory
mechanlsms, proLecL Lhelr chlldren's mlnds from exposure Lo undeslrable maLerlals and corrupLlng experlences. 1he ConsLlLuLlon,

8 | a b r c . p o l l . 0 9 - 1 0 / c r y s

no less, ln facL en[olns Lhe SLaLe, Lo promoLe and proLecL Lhe physlcal, moral, splrlLual, lnLellecLual, and soclal well-belng of Lhe
youLh Lo beLLer prepare Lhem fulflll Lhelr role ln Lhe fleld of naLlon-bulldlng. ln Lhe same way, Lhe SLaLe ls mandaLed Lo supporL
parenLs ln Lhe rearlng of Lhe youLh for clvlc efflclency and Lhe developmenL of moral characLer.

eLlLloner's offenslve and obscene language uLLered ln a Lelevlslon broadcasL, wlLhouL doubL, was easlly accesslble Lo Lhe
chlldren. Pls sLaLemenLs could have exposed chlldren Lo a language LhaL ls unaccepLable ln everyday use. As such, Lhe welfare of
chlldren and Lhe SLaLe's mandaLe Lo proLecL and care for Lhem, as poteos pottloe, consLlLuLe a subsLanLlal and compelllng
governmenL lnLeresL ln regulaLlng peLlLloner's uLLerances ln 1v broadcasL as provlded ln u 1986.

lCC explalns Lhe duLy of Lhe governmenL Lo acL as poteos pottloe Lo proLecL Lhe chlldren who, because of age or lnLeresL
capaclLy, are suscepLlble of belng corrupLed or pre[udlced by offenslve language, Lhus:

8roadcasLlng ls unlquely accesslble Lo chlldren, even Lhose Loo young Lo read. AlLhough Cohen's
wrlLLen message, (luck Lhe urafL"), mlghL have been lncomprehenslble Lo a flrsL grader, aclflca's broadcasL
could have enlarged a chlld's vocabulary ln an lnsLanL. CLher forms of offenslve expresslon may be wlLhheld
from Lhe young wlLhouL resLrlcLlng Lhe expresslon aL lLs source. 8ooksLores and moLlon plcLure LheaLers, for
example, may be prohlblLed from maklng lndecenL maLerlal avallable Lo chlldren. We held ln Clnsberg vs. new
?ork LhaL Lhe governmenL's lnLeresL ln Lhe well-belng of lLs youLh" and ln supporLlng parenLs' clalm Lo
auLhorlLy ln Lhelr own household" [usLlfled Lhe regulaLlon of oLherwlse proLecLed expresslon. 1he case wlLh
whlch chlldren may obLaln access Lo broadcasL maLerlal, coupled wlLh Lhe concerns recognlzed ln Clnsberg,
amply [usLlfy speclal LreaLmenL of lndecenL broadcasLlng.

Moreover, Conzales vs. kalaw kaLlgbak llkewlse sLressed Lhe duLy of Lhe SLaLe Lo aLLend Lo Lhe welfare of Lhe young:

lL ls Lhe consensus of Lhls CourL LhaL where Lelevlslon ls concerned, a less llberal approach calls for
observance. 1hls ls so because unllke moLlon plcLures where Lhe paLrons have Lo pay Lhelr way, Lelevlslon
reaches every home where Lhere ls a seL. Chlldren Lhen wlll llkely wlll be among Lhe avld vlewers of Lhe programs
Lhereln shown. As was observed by ClrculL CourL of Appeals !udge !erome lrank, lL ls hardly Lhe concern of Lhe
law Lo deal wlLh Lhe sexual fanLasles of Lhe adulL populaLlon. lL cannoL be denled Lhough LhaL Lhe SLaLe as poteos
pottloe ls called upon Lo manlfesL an aLLlLude of carlng for Lhe welfare of Lhe young.

Cne who uLLers lndecenL, lnsulLlng, or offenslve words on Lelevlslon when unsuspecLlng chlldren are ln Lhe audlence ls, ln
Lhe graphlc language of lCC, a plg ln Lhe parlor." ubllc lnLeresL would be served lf Lhe plg" ls reasonably resLralned or even
removed from Lhe parlor."

Suspens|on |s not pr|or restra|nt but a sanct|on.

1he Lhree (3) monLhs suspenslon ln Lhls case ls noL a prlor resLralnL on Lhe rlghL of peLlLloner Lo conLlnue wlLh Lhe
broadcasL of Ang uaLlng uaan as a permlL was already lssued Lo hlm by M18C8 for such broadcasL. 8aLher, Lhe suspenslon ls ln Lhe
form of permlsslble admlnlsLraLlve sancLlon or subsequenL punlshmenL for Lhe offenslve and obscene remarks he uLLered on Lhe
evenlng of AugusL 10, 2004 ln hls Lelevlslon program, Ang uaLlng uaan. lL ls a sancLlon LhaL Lhe M18C8 may valldly lmpose under
lLs charLer wlLhouL runnlng afoul of Lhe free speech clause. And Lhe lmposlLlon ls separaLe and dlsLlncL from Lhe crlmlnal acLlon Lhe
8oard may Lake pursuanL Lo Sec. 3(l) of u 1986 and Lhe remedles LhaL may be avalled of by Lhe aggrleved prlvaLe parLy under Lhe
provlslons on llbel or LorL, lf appllcable. As lCC Leaches, Lhe lmposlLlon of sancLlons on broadcasLers who lndulge ln profane or
lndecenL broadcasLlng does noL consLlLuLe forbldden censorshlp. LesL lL be overlooked, Lhe sancLlon lmposed ls noL pet se for
peLlLloner's exerclse of hls freedom of speech vla Lelevlslon, buL for Lhe lndecenL conLenLs of hls uLLerances ln a C" raLed 1v
program.

keason why te|ev|s|on broadcasts shou|d be
regu|ated.

1elevlslon broadcasLs should be sub[ecL Lo some form of regulaLlon, conslderlng Lhe ease wlLh whlch Lhey can be
accessed, and vlolaLlons of Lhe regulaLlons musL be meL wlLh approprlaLe and proporLlonal dlsclpllnary acLlon. 1he suspenslon of a
vlolaLlng Lelevlslon program would be sufflclenL punlshmenL and serve as a deLerrenL for Lhose responslble. 1he prevenLlon of Lhe
broadcasL of peLlLloner's Lelevlslon program ls [usLlfled, and does noL consLlLuLe prohlblLed prlor resLralnL. lL behooves Lhe CourL Lo
respond Lo Lhe needs of Lhe changlng Llmes, and crafL [urlsprudence Lo reflecL Lhese Llmes.

O - letltlooet otqoeJ tbot tbete bos beeo ooJoe Jeleqotloo of leqlslotlve powet, os lu 1986 Joes oot ptovlJe fot tbe tooqe of
lmposoble peooltles tbot moy be opplleJ wltb tespect to vlolotloos of tbe ptovlsloos of tbe low. ls tbe cooteotloo cottect? wby?

Answer: no. 1he lawmaklng body cannoL posslbly provlde for all Lhe deLalls ln Lhe enforcemenL of a parLlcular sLaLuLe. 1he granL of
Lhe rule-maklng power Lo admlnlsLraLlve agencles ls a relaxaLlon of Lhe prlnclple of separaLlon of powers and ls an excepLlon Lo Lhe
non-delegaLlon of leglslaLlve powers. AdmlnlsLraLlve regulaLlons or subordlnaLe leglslaLlon" calculaLed Lo promoLe Lhe publlc
lnLeresL are necessary because of Lhe growlng complexlLy of modern llfe, Lhe mulLlpllcaLlon of Lhe sub[ecLs of governmenLal
regulaLlons, and Lhe lncreased dlfflculLy of admlnlsLerlng Lhe law." Allowlng Lhe M18C8 some reasonable elbow-room ln lLs
operaLlons and, ln Lhe exerclse of lLs sLaLuLory dlsclpllnary funcLlons, accordlng lL ample laLlLude ln flxlng, by way of an approprlaLe
lssuance, admlnlsLraLlve penalLles wlLh due regard for Lhe severlLy of Lhe offense and aLLendlng mlLlgaLlng or aggravaLlng

9 | a b r c . p o l l . 0 9 - 1 0 / c r y s

clrcumsLances, as Lhe case may be, would be conslsLenL wlLh lLs mandaLe Lo effecLlvely and efflclenLly regulaLe Lhe movle and
Lelevlslon lndusLry. (See: Ldu vs. LrlcLa).

k|ght to be |nformed of the nature of accusat|on.

ln eople vs. 8ogello Marcos, C.8. no. 183380, !une 18, 2009 accused was charged wlLh Lhe crlme of rape. Pe complalned
LhaL Lhe prosecuLlon presenLed evldence of subsequenL rapes hence, he conLended LhaL hls rlghL Lo be lnformed of Lhe naLure of
Lhe accusaLlon agalnsL hlm was vlolaLed. ls Lhe conLenLlon correcL? Why?

Answer: 1he conLenLlon ls noL well-Laken. Whlle lL ls a baslc consLlLuLlonal precepL LhaL Lhe accused ln a crlmlnal case should be
lnformed of Lhe naLure of Lhe offense wlLh whlch he ls charged before he ls puL on Lrlal, and LhaL Lhe accused be convlcLed only of
an offense alleged ln Lhe complalnL or lnformaLlon, such prlnclple flnds no appllcaLlon Lo Lhls case. Accused was belng Lrled for Lhe
rapes he commlLLed subsequenL Lo LhaL alleged ln Lhe lnformaLlon. 1he prosecuLlon does noL seek LhaL he be punlshed for Lhe
rapes he perpeLraLed ouLslde Lhe daLe menLloned ln Lhe lnformaLlon. 1he sald prlnclple becomes relevanL lf he were soughL Lo be
punlshed for Lhe acLs of rape he carrled ouL oLher Lhan Lhe one sLaLed ln Lhe lnformaLlon. 1he prosecuLlon adduced evldence LhaL
he raped Lhe vlcLlm several Llmes afLer Lhe daLe ln quesLlon, preclsely Lo show LhaL Lhe pregnancy of vlcLlm was auLhored by hlm
and noL Lo prove LhaL he should be punlshed for such. Lven assumlng otqoeoJo LhaL Lhe LesLlmony on Lhe successlve molesLaLlons
could noL be consldered as evldence for Lhe prosecuLlon, Lhe cause of Lhe prosecuLlon ls sufflclenLly proved by Lhe credlble
LesLlmony of Lhe vlcLlm relaLlng Lo Lhe 13 !uly 2003 rape lncldenL. 1hls ls an esLabllshed proof. 1hls alone can susLaln Lhe convlcLlon
of Lhe accused.

Impa|rment of contract c|ause.

O - 1be coostltotlooollty of tbe ptovlsloo of 5ec. J4, kA 9J69 wblcb flxes tbe pet Jlem of poll wotcbets of tbe Jomlooot mojotlty ooJ
Jomlooot mlootlty pottles ot l400.00 oo electloo Joy wos poestlooeJ oo tbe qtoooJ tbot lt vlolotes tbe fteeJom of tbe pottles to
coottoct ooJ tbelt tlqbt to flx tbe tetms ooJ cooJltloos of tbe coottoct tbey see os folt, epoltoble ooJ jost. ne oJJeJ tbot tbls ls o
potely ptlvote coottoct osloq ptlvote fooJs wblcb coooot be teqoloteJ by low.

8oLh Lhe CCMLLLC and Lhe CSC argue LhaL Lhe law ls a proper exerclse of pollce power and lL wlll prevall over a conLracL.
Accordlng Lo Lhe CCMLLLC, poll waLchlng ls noL [usL an ordlnary conLracL buL ls an agreemenL wlLh Lhe solemn duLy Lo ensure Lhe
sancLlLy of voLes. 1he role of poll waLchers ls vesLed wlLh publlc lnLeresL whlch can be regulaLed by Congress ln Lhe exerclse of lLs
pollce power. 1he CSC furLher argued LhaL Lhe assurance LhaL Lhe poll waLchers wlll recelve falr and equlLable compensaLlon
promoLes Lhe general welfare. 1he CSC also sLaLed LhaL Lhls was a reasonable regulaLlon conslderlng LhaL Lhe domlnanL ma[orlLy
and mlnorlLy parLles wlll secure a copy of Lhe elecLlon reLurns and are glven Lhe rlghL Lo asslgn poll waLchers lnslde Lhe polllng
preclncLs. ls Lhe conLenLlon of peLlLloner correcL? Why?

Answer: no. 1here ls no vlolaLlon of Lhe non-lmpalrmenL clause. llrsL, Lhe non- lmpalrmenL clause ls llmlLed ln appllcaLlon Lo laws
LhaL derogaLe from prlor acLs or conLracLs by enlarglng, abrldglng or ln any manner changlng Lhe lnLenLlon of Lhe parLles. (Serrano
v. CallanL MarlLlme Servlces, lnc., C.8. no. 167614, march 24, 2009). 1here ls lmpalrmenL lf a subsequenL law changes Lhe Lerms of
a conLracL beLween Lhe parLles, lmposes new condlLlons, dlspenses wlLh Lhose agreed upon or wlLhdraws remedles for Lhe
enforcemenL of Lhe rlghLs of Lhe parLles. (Clemons v. nolLlng, 42 hll. 702 (1922).

Second, lL ls seLLled LhaL pollce power ls superlor Lo Lhe non-lmpalrmenL clause. 1he consLlLuLlonal guaranLy of non-
lmpalrmenL of conLracLs ls llmlLed by Lhe exerclse of Lhe pollce power of Lhe SLaLe, ln Lhe lnLeresL of publlc healLh, safeLy, morals,
and general welfare of Lhe communlLy. (8arangay AssoclaLlon for naLlonal AdvancemenL and 1ransparency (8AnA1) v. CCMLLLC,
C.8. no. 177308, AugusL 7, 2009).

1here |s no |mpa|rment of contract but a va||d
exerc|se of po||ce power of the State, when State
recovers property fraudu|ent|y covered by 1C1.

O - lf tbe 5tote tecovets o ptopetty ftooJoleotly coveteJ by o 1c1, ls tbete oo vlolotloo of tbe ooo-lmpoltmeot of coottoct cloose?
xplolo.

Answer: no. 1he consLlLuLlonal guaranLee of non-lmpalrmenL of conLracLs may noL llkewlse be used by L8 Lo valldaLe lLs lnLeresL
over Lhe land as morLgagee. 1he SLaLe's resLralnL upon Lhe rlghL Lo have an lnLeresL or ownershlp over foresL lands does noL
vlolaLe Lhe consLlLuLlonal guaranLee of non-lmpalrmenL of conLracLs. Sald resLralnL ls a valld exerclse of Lhe pollce power of Lhe
SLaLe. ln ultectot of lotestty v. Moooz, 132 hll. 637 (1968), lL was sald LhaL because of Lhe lmporLance of foresLs Lo Lhe naLlon, Lhe
SLaLe's pollce power has been wlelded Lo regulaLe Lhe use and occupancy of foresL and foresL reserves.

reservaLlon of our foresL lands could enLall lnLruslon upon conLracLual rlghLs as ln Lhls case buL lL ls [usLlfled by Lhe LaLln
maxlms 5olos popoll est soptemo lex and 5lc otete too ot olleoom ooo loeJos, whlch call for Lhe subordlnaLlon of lndlvldual
lnLeresLs Lo Lhe beneflL of Lhe greaLer number. (?noL v. lAC, C.8. no. 74437, March 20, 1987, 148 SC8A 639, L8 v. 8epubllc, C.8.
no. 130824, lebruary 4, 2008).

IMMUNI1 CI S1A1L IkCM SUI1


10 | a b r c . p o l l . 0 9 - 1 0 / c r y s

lacLs:
8Cvl ls an enLlLy engaged ln Lhe sale of hlgh Lechnology equlpmenL, lnformaLlon Lechnology producLs and broadcasL
devlces, lncludlng Lhe supply of plasLlc card prlnLlng and securlLy faclllLles.

1LSuA ls an lnsLrumenLallLy of Lhe governmenL esLabllshed under 8epubllc AcL (8.A.) no. 7796 (Lhe 1LSuA AcL of 1994)
and aLLached Lo Lhe ueparLmenL of Labor and LmploymenL (uCLL) Lo develop and esLabllsh a naLlonal sysLem of skllls
sLandardlzaLlon, LesLlng, and cerLlflcaLlon ln Lhe counLry." 1o fulflll Lhls mandaLe, lL soughL Lo lssue securlLy-prlnLed cerLlflcaLlon
and/or ldenLlflcaLlon polyvlnyl (vC) cards Lo Lralnees who have passed Lhe cerLlflcaLlon process.

1he parLles enLered lnLo a conLracL for Lhe supply of securlLy-prlnLed cerLlflcaLlon worLh 39,473,000.00. AfLer dellvery of
Lhe cerLlflcaLlon, 1LSuA pald only 3,739,300.00, hence, 8Cvl demanded for paymenL of Lhe balance. lor fallure Lo pay, a sulL
was flled wlLh prayer for aLLachmenL whlch Lhe 81C granLed. A peLlLlon for cerLlorarl was flled by 1LSuA where Lhe CA reversed Lhe
81C flndlng LhaL (a) 1LSuA's funds are publlc ln naLure and, Lherefore, exempL from garnlshmenL, and (b) 1LSuA's purchase of Lhe
vC cards was a necessary lncldenL of lLs governmenLal funcLlon, consequenLly, lL ruled LhaL Lhere was no legal basls for Lhe
lssuance of a wrlL of prellmlnary aLLachmenL/garnlshmenL. 1he CA subsequenLly denled 8Cvl's moLlon for reconslderaLlon,
hence, Lhe peLlLlon for cerLlorarl. ls Lhe rullng of Lhe CA correcL? Why?

Peld: ?es, because 1LSuA ls an lnsLrumenLallLy of Lhe governmenL underLaklng governmenLal funcLlon.

8.A. no. 7796 creaLed Lhe 1echnlcal LducaLlon and Skllls uevelopmenL AuLhorlLy or 1LSuA under Lhe declared pollcy of
Lhe SLaLe Lo provlde relevanL, accesslble, hlgh quallLy and efflclenL Lechnlcal educaLlon and skllls developmenL ln supporL of Lhe
developmenL of hlgh quallLy llllplno mlddle-level manpower responslble Lo and ln accordance wlLh hlllpplne developmenL goals
and prlorlLles."

Among oLhers, 1LSuA ls empowered Lo: approve Lrade skllls sLandards and Lrade LesLs as esLabllshed and conducLed by
prlvaLe lndusLrles, esLabllsh and admlnlsLer a sysLem of accredlLaLlon of boLh publlc and prlvaLe lnsLlLuLlons, esLabllsh, develop and
supporL Lhe lnsLlLuLlons' Lralnors' Lralnlng and/or programs, exacL reasonable fees and charges for such LesLs and Lralnlngs
conducLed, and reLaln such earnlngs for lLs own use, sub[ecL Lo guldellnes promulgaLed by Lhe AuLhorlLy, and perform such oLher
duLles and funcLlons necessary Lo carry ouL Lhe provlslons of Lhe AcL, conslsLenL wlLh Lhe purposes of Lhe creaLlon of 1LSuA.

All Lhese measures are underLaken pursuanL Lo Lhe consLlLuLlonal command LhaL 1he SLaLe afflrms labor as a prlmary
soclal economlc force", and shall proLecL Lhe rlghLs of workers and promoLe Lhelr welfare", LhaL 1he SLaLe shall proLecL and
promoLe Lhe rlghL of all clLlzens Lo quallLy educaLlon aL all levels, and shall Lake approprlaLe sLeps Lo make such educaLlon
accesslble Lo all", ln order Lo afford proLecLlon Lo labor" and promoLe full employmenL and equallLy of employmenL
opporLunlLles for all." (rofesslonal vldeo, lnc. vs. 1echnlcal LducaLlon and Skllls uevelopmenL AuLhorlLy (1LSuA), C.8. no. 133304,
!une 26, 2009).

1LSDA, as an agency of the State, cannot be sued
w|thout |ts consent, reason.

1he rule LhaL a sLaLe may noL be sued wlLhouL lLs consenL ls embodles ln SecLlon 3, ArLlcle xvl of Lhe 1987 ConsLlLuLlon
and has been an esLabllshed prlnclple LhaL anLedaLes Lhls ConsLlLuLlon. lL ls as well a unlversally recognlzed prlnclple of
lnLernaLlonal law LhaL exempLs a sLaLe and lLs organs from Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of anoLher sLaLe. 1he prlnclple ls based on Lhe very
essence of soverelgnLy, and on Lhe pracLlcal ground LhaL Lhere can be no legal rlghL as agalnsL Lhe auLhorlLy LhaL makes Lhe law on
whlch Lhe rlghL depends. lL also resLs on reasons of publlc pollcy - LhaL publlc servlce would be hlndered, and Lhe publlc
endangered, lf Lhe soverelgn auLhorlLy could be sub[ecLed Lo law sulLs aL Lhe lnsLance of every clLlzen and, consequenLly,
conLrolled ln Lhe uses and dlsposlLlons of Lhe means requlred for Lhe proper admlnlsLraLlon of Lhe governmenL.

1he proscrlbed sulL LhaL Lhe sLaLe lmmunlLy prlnclple covers Lakes on varlous forms, namely: a sulL agalnsL Lhe 8epubllc by
name, a sulL agalnsL an unlncorporaLed governmenL agency, a sulL agalnsL a governmenL agency covered by a charLer wlLh respecL
Lo Lhe agency's performance of governmenLal funcLlons, and a sulL LhaL on lLs face ls agalnsL a governmenL offlcer, buL where Lhe
ulLlmaLe llablllLy wlll fall on Lhe governmenL. ln Lhe presenL case, Lhe wrlL of aLLachmenL was lssued agalnsL a governmenL agency
covered by lLs own charLer. 1LSuA performs governmenLal funcLlons, and Lhe lssuance of cerLlflcaLlon ls a Lask wlLhln lLs funcLlon
of developlng and esLabllshlng a sysLem of skllls sLandardlzaLlon, LesLlng, and cerLlflcaLlon ln Lhe counLry. lrom Lhe perspecLlve of
Lhls funcLlon, Lhe core reason for Lhe exlsLence of sLaLe lmmunlLy applles, l.e., Lhe publlc pollcy reason LhaL Lhe performance of
governmenLal funcLlon cannoL be hlndered or delayed by sulLs, nor can Lhese sulLs conLrol Lhe use and dlsposlLlon of Lhe means for
Lhe performance of governmenLal funcLlons.

Lffect of 1LSDA's Contract.

C - 8Cvl argued LhaL 1LSuA can be sued because lL has effecLlvely walved lLs lmmunlLy when lL enLered lnLo a conLracL wlLh
8Cvl for a commerclal purpose. Accordlng Lo 8Cvl, slnce Lhe purpose of lLs conLracL wlLh 1LSuA ls Lo provlde ldenLlflcaLlon vC
cards wlLh securlLy seal whlch 1LSuA wlll LhereafLer sell Lo 1LSuA Lralnees, 1LSuA Lhereby engages ln commerclal LransacLlons noL
lncldenLal Lo lLs governmenLal funcLlons.

1LSuA conLenLed LhaL lL ls noL engaged ln buslness. Whlle 1LSuA admlLLed LhaL lL wlll charge Lhe Lralnees wlLh a fee for
Lhe vC cards, lL clalmed LhaL Lhls fee ls only Lo recover Lhelr cosLs and ls noL lnLended for proflL. 8ule on Lhe conLenLlons.

11 | a b r c . p o l l . 0 9 - 1 0 / c r y s


Peld: 1LSuA ls correcL. 1he vC cards purchased by 1LSuA from 8Cvl are meanL Lo properly ldenLlfy Lhe Lralnees who passed
1LSuA's naLlonal Skllls CerLlflcaLlon rogram - Lhe program LhaL lmmedlaLely serves 1LSuA's mandaLed funcLlon of developlng and
esLabllshlng a naLlonal sysLem of skllls sLandardlzaLlon, LesLlng, and cerLlflcaLlon ln Lhe counLry.

1haL 1LSuA sells Lhe vC cards Lo lLs Lralnees for a fee does noL characLerlze Lhe LransacLlon as lndusLrlal or buslness, Lhe
sale, expressly auLhorlzed by Lhe 1LSuA AcL, cannoL be consldered separaLely from 1LSuA's general governmenLal funcLlons, as
Lhey are underLaken ln Lhe dlscharge of Lhese funcLlons. Along Lhls llne of reasonlng, lL was held ln Mobll hlllpplnes vs. CusLoms
ArrasLre Servlces:

1he facL a non-corporaLe governmenL enLlLy performs a funcLlon proprleLary ln naLure does noL
necessarlly resulL ln lLs belng suable. lf sald non-governmenLal funcLlon ls underLaken as an lncldenL Lo lLs
governmenLal funcLlon, Lhere ls no walver Lhereby of Lhe soverelgn lmmunlLy from sulL exLended Lo such
governmenL enLlLy. (18 SC8A 1120 (1966).

1LSDA's funds are pub||c |n character, hence
exempt from attachment or garn|shment.

Lven assumlng LhaL 1LSuA enLered lnLo a proprleLary conLracL wlLh 8Cvl and Lhereby gave lLs lmplled consenL Lo be
sued, 1LSuA's funds are sLlll publlc ln naLure and, Lhus, cannoL be valld sub[ecL of a wrlL of garnlshmenL or aLLachmenL. ln kepobllc
v. vlllosot, Lhe llmlLs ln deallng wlLh publlc funds was explalned, Lhus:

1hls fundamenLal posLulaLe underlylng Lhe 1933 ConsLlLuLlon ls now made expllclL ln Lhe revlsed charLer.
lL ls Lhereln expressly provlded, 1he SLaLe may noL be sued wlLhouL lLs consenL." A corollary, boLh dlcLaLed by
loglc and sound sense, from such a baslc concepL, ls LhaL publlc funds cannoL be Lhe ob[ecL of garnlshmenL
proceedlngs even lf Lhe consenL Lo be sued had been prevlously granLed and Lhe sLaLe llablllLy ad[udged. 1hus ln
Lhe recenL case of Commlssloner of ubllc Plghways vs. San ulego, such a well-seLLled docLrlne was resLaLed
Lhus:

1he unlversal rule LhaL where Lhe SLaLe glves lLs consenL Lo be sued by prlvaLe parLles elLher by general or
speclal law, lL may llmlL clalmanL's acLlon only up Lo Lhe compleLlon of proceedlngs anLerlor Lo Lhe sLage of
execuLlon and LhaL Lhe power of Lhe CourLs ends when Lhe [udgmenL ls rendered, slnce governmenL funds and
properLles may noL be selzed under wrlLs of execuLlon or garnlshmenL Lo saLlsfy such [udgmenLs, ls based on
obvlous conslderaLlons of publlc pollcy. ulsbursemenLs of publlc funds musL be covered by Lhe correspondlng
approprlaLlon as requlred by law. 1he funcLlons and publlc servlces rendered by Lhe SLaLe cannoL be allowed Lo
be paralyzed or dlsrupLed by Lhe dlverslon of publlc funds from Lhelr leglLlmaLe and speclflc ob[ecLs, as
approprlaLed by law. (34 SC8A 84 (1973), 1raders 8oyal 8ank vs. lnLermedlaLe AppellaLe CourL, 192 SC8A 303
(1990).

1he garnlshed funds consLlLuLe 1LSuA's llfeblood - ln governmenL parlance, lLs MCCL (malnLenance and oLher operaLlng
expenses) whose wlLhholdlng vla a wrlL of aLLachmenL, even on a Lemporary basls, would paralyze 1LSuA's funcLlons and servlces.
As well, Lhese funds also lnclude 1LSuA's ersonal Servlces funds from whlch salarles of 1LSuA personnel are sourced. lor obvlous
reasons, Lhe release of Lhese funds cannoL be delayed.
Ak1ICLL VI
LLGISLA1IVL DLAk1MLN1

Invest|gat|on |n a|d of |eg|s|at|on, on-go|ng [ud|c|a|
proceed|ngs cannot prevent |nvest|gat|on |n a|d of
|eg|s|at|on.

ln keqbls kometo ll, et ol. v. 5eo. Iloqqoy sttoJo, et ol., C.8. no. 174103, Aprll 2, 2009, Lhe lssue on Lhe conducL of
lnvesLlgaLlon ln ald of leglslaLlon was once agaln ralsed ln relaLlon Lo Lhe lnvesLmenLs of Lhe CWWA funds lnLo Lhe Smokey ro[ecL.
lL soughL Lo lnqulre lnLo Lhe llablllLy of resldenL 8amos and oLhers for Lhe lllegal lnvesLmenL of Lhe CWWA lunds lnLo Lhe pro[ecL
causlng loss Lo CWWA ln Lhe amounL of 330 Mllllon. lL was lnLended llkewlse Lo ald Lhe SenaLe ln Lhe revlew and posslble
amendmenLs Lo 8A 8042, Lhe MlgranLs Workers AcL. LeLLers were senL Lo Lhe peLlLloners Lo appear before Lhe SenaLe CommlLLee
on Labor, LmploymenL and Puman 8esources uevelopmenL buL Lhey conLended LhaL slnce Lhe lnvesLlgaLlon has been lnLended Lo
ascerLaln Lhelr crlmlnal llablllLy for plunder, lL ls noL ln ald of leglslaLlon and LhaL lL could vlolaLe Lhelr rlghL agalnsL self-
lncrlmlnaLlon. 1hls ls Lhe glsL of Lhelr peLlLlon for ln[uncLlon flled wlLh Lhe Supreme CourL buL Lhe CourL ln denylng Lhe peLlLlon:

Peld: A leglslaLlve lnvesLlgaLlon ln ald of leglslaLlon and courL proceedlngs have dlfferenL purposes. Cn one hand, courLs conducL
hearlngs or llke ad[udlcaLlve procedures Lo seLLle, Lhrough Lhe appllcaLlon of a law, acLual conLroversles arlslng beLween adverse
llLlganLs and lnvolvlng demandable rlghLs. Cn Lhe oLher hand, lnqulrles ln ald of leglslaLlon are, lotet, ollo, underLaken as Lools Lo
enable Lhe leglslaLlve body Lo gaLher lnformaLlon and, Lhus, leglslaLe wlsely and effecLlvely, (ArnaulL vs. nazareno, 87 hll. 29
(1930), and Lo deLermlne wheLher Lhere ls a need Lo lmprove exlsLlng laws or enacL new or remedlal leglslaLlon, (nerl vs. SenaLe
CommlLLee on AccounLablllLy of ubllc Cfflcers and lnvesLlgaLlons, C.8. no. 180643, March 23, 2008, 349 SC8A 77, 168, clLlng W.
keefe & M. Cgul, 1he Amerlcan LeglslaLlve rocess: Congress and Lhe SLaLes, 20-23 (4
Lh
ed., 1977), albelL Lhe lnqulry need noL
resulL ln any poLenLlal leglslaLlon. Cn-golng [udlclal proceedlngs do noL preclude congresslonal hearlngs ln ald of leglslaLlon.

12 | a b r c . p o l l . 0 9 - 1 0 / c r y s

SLandard CharLered 8ank (hlllpplne 8ranch) vs. SenaLe CommlLLee on 8anks, llnanclal lnsLlLuLlons and Currencles (SLandard
CharLered 8ank) provldes Lhe followlng reasons:

1he mere flllng of a crlmlnal or an admlnlsLraLlve complalnL before a courL or quasl-[udlclal body should
noL auLomaLlcally bar Lhe conducL of leglslaLlve lnvesLlgaLlon. CLherwlse, lL would be exLremely easy Lo subverL
any lnLended lnqulry by Congress Lhrough Lhe convenlenL ploy of lnsLlLuLlng a crlmlnal or an admlnlsLraLlve
complalnL. Surely, Lhe exerclse of soverelgn leglslaLlve auLhorlLy, of whlch Lhe power of leglslaLlve lnqulry ls an
essenLlal componenL, cannoL be made subordlnaLe Lo a crlmlnal or admlnlsLraLlve lnvesLlgaLlon.
A succlncLly sLaLed ln ArnaulL vs. nazareno:

1he power of lnqulry wlLh process Lo enforce lL, ls an essenLlal and approprlaLe auxlllary Lo Lhe
leglslaLlve funcLlon. A leglslaLlve body cannoL leglslaLe wlsely or effecLlvely ln Lhe absence of lnformaLlon
respecLlng Lhe condlLlons whlch Lhe leglslaLlon ls lnLended Lo affecL or change, and where Lhe leglslaLlve body
does noL lLself possess Lhe requlslLe lnformaLlon whlch ls noL lnfrequenLly Lrue, recourse musL be had Lo oLhers
who possess lL. (C.8. no. 167173, uecember 27, 2007, 341 SC8A 436).

Whlle Sablo and SLandard CharLered 8ank adverL only Lo pendlng crlmlnal and admlnlsLraLlve cases before lower courLs as
noL poslng a bar Lo Lhe conLlnuaLlon of a leglslaLlve lnqulry, Lhere ls no rhyme or reason LhaL Lhese cases' docLrlnal pronouncemenL
and Lhelr raLlonale cannoL be exLended Lo appealed cases and speclal clvll acLlons awalLlng flnal dlsposlLlon before Lhe CourL.

1he denlal of Lhe peLlLlon was furLher aggravaLed by Lhe facL LhaL lnvlLaLlons and subpoenas were senL ouL by Lhe pasL
Congress. 1he SenaLe of each Congress acLs separaLely and lndependenLly of Lhe SenaLe before and afLer lL, hence, such subpoenas
are consldered fooctos oflclo and Lhe relaLed leglslaLlve lnqulry conducLed ls, for all lnLenLs and purposes, LermlnaLed.

ower to |ssue subpoena, no v|o|at|on of the r|ght
aga|nst se|f-|ncr|m|nat|on.

Sufflce lL Lo sLaLe LhaL when Lhe CommlLLee lssued lnvlLaLlons and subpoenas Lo peLlLloners Lo appear before lL ln
connecLlon wlLh lLs lnvesLlgaLlon of Lhe aforemenLloned lnvesLmenLs, lL dld so pursuanL Lo lLs auLhorlLy Lo conducL lnqulrles ln ald
of leglslaLlon. 1hls ls clearly provlded ln ArLlcle lv, SecLlon 21 of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon. And Lhe CourL has no auLhorlLy Lo prohlblL a
SenaLe CommlLLee from requlrlng persons Lo appear and LesLlfy before lL ln connecLlon wlLh an lnqulry ln ald of leglslaLlon ln
accordance wlLh lLs duly publlshed rules of procedure. (SenaLe 8lue 8lbbon CommlLLee vs. Ma[aducon, 407 SC8A 336 (2003). Sablo
emphaslzes Lhe lmporLance of Lhe duLy of Lhose subpoenaed Lo appear before Lhe leglslaLure, even lf lncldenLally lncrlmlnaLlng
quesLlons are expecLed Lo be asked:

AnenL Lhe rlghL agalnsL self-lncrlmlnaLlon, lL musL be emphaslzed LhaL Lhls rlghL may be lnvoked by Lhe
sald dlrecLors and offlcers of hllcomsaL only when Lhe lncrlmlnaLlng quesLlon ls belng asked, slnce Lhey have no
way of knowlng ln advance Lhe naLure or effecL of Lhe quesLlons Lo be asked of Lhem." 1haL Lhls rlghL may
posslbly be vlolaLed or abused ls no ground for denylng respondenL SenaLe CommlLLees Lhelr power of lnqulry.
1he consolaLlon ls LhaL when Lhls power ls abused, such lssue may be presenLed before Lhe courLs.

LeL lL be sLressed aL Lhls polnL LhaL so long as Lhe consLlLuLlonal rlghLs of wlLnesses wlll be respecLed by
respondenL SenaLe CommlLLees, lL ls Lhelr duLy Lo cooperaLe wlLh Lhem ln Lhelr efforLs Lo obLaln Lhe facLs needed
for lnLelllgenL leglslaLlve acLlon. 1he unremlLLlng obllgaLlon of every clLlzen ls Lo respond Lo subpoenae, Lo
respecL Lhe dlgnlLy of Lhe Congress and lLs CommlLLees, and Lo LesLlfy fully wlLh respecL Lo maLLers wlLhln Lhe
realm of proper lnvesLlgaLlon. (Lmphasls supplled).

nkL1 has the so|e power to dec|de qua||f|cat|ons of
member of |ower nouse |nc|ud|ng arty-L|st.

ln ut. noos cbtlstloo 5eetes vs. cOMlc, et ol., C.8. no. 178678, Aprll 16, 2009, Lhere were Lwo seLs of nomlnees of
8uPA? arLy LlsL. AfLer Lhe elecLlons, Lhe nomlnees by 8obles as resldenL of Lhe organlzaLlon Look Lhelr oaLh and assumed offlce
as members of Congress, hence, Seneres flled a speclal Clvll AcLlon for CerLlorarl wlLh Lhe SC alleglng grave abuse of dlscreLlon
amounLlng Lo lack or excess of [urlsdlcLlon on Lhe parL of Lhe CCMLLLC ln proclalmlng Lhe 8obles nomlnees and Lhere was no plaln,
speedy and adequaLe remedy ln Lhe ordlnary course of law. ln denylng Lhe peLlLlon Lhe SC

Peld: 1he peLlLlon ls noL a plaln, speedy and adequaLe remedy, because Lhe P8L1 ls Lhe sole [udge of all conLenLs perLalnlng Lo Lhe
elecLlon reLurns and quallflcaLlons of Lhe members of Lhe Pouse of 8epresenLaLlves. (ArL. vl, Sec. 17, ConsLlLuLlon).

ln lozotlo v. noose lectotol 1tlboool, Lhe CourL elucldaLed on Lhe lmporL of Lhe word sole" ln ArLlcle vl, SecLlon 17 of Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon, Lhus:

1he use of Lhe word sole" emphaslzes Lhe excluslve characLer of Lhe [urlsdlcLlon conferred. 1he
exerclse of Lhe power by Lhe LlecLoral Commlsslon under Lhe 1933 ConsLlLuLlon has been descrlbed as 'lnLended
Lo be as compleLe and unlmpalred as lf lL had remalned orlglnally ln Lhe leglslaLure.' Larller, Lhls granL of power
Lo Lhe leglslaLure was characLerlzed by !usLlce Malcolm as 'full, clear and compleLe'. under Lhe amended 1933
ConsLlLuLlon, Lhe power was unquallfledly reposed upon Lhe LlecLoral 1rlbunal and lL remalned as full, clear and

13 | a b r c . p o l l . 0 9 - 1 0 / c r y s

compleLe as LhaL prevlously granLed Lhe leglslaLure and Lhe LlecLoral Commlsslon. 1he same may be sald wlLh
regard Lo Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe LlecLoral 1rlbunals under Lhe 1987 ConsLlLuLlon. (168 SC8A 391 (1988), 8asul vs.
CCMLLLC and Aqulno-CreLa, 313 SC8A 18 (1999)).

1he Pouse of 8epresenLaLlves LlecLoral 1rlbunal's (P8L1) sole and excluslve [urlsdlcLlon over conLesLs relaLlve Lo Lhe
elecLlon, reLurns and quallflcaLlons of Lhe members of Lhe Pouse of 8epresenLaLlves beglns only afLer a candldaLe has become a
member of Lhe Pouse of 8epresenLaLlves." (8omualdez-Marcos vs. Commlsslon on LlecLlons, C.8. no. 119976, SepLember 18,
1993, 248 SC8A 300, 340-341. See also uomlngo vs. CCMLLLC, C.8. no. 134013, !uly 19, 1999, 310 SC8A 347, Aqulno vs.
CCMLLLC, C.8. no. 1202963, SepLember 18, 1993, 248 SC8A 400). 1hus, once a wlnnlng candldaLe has been proclalmed, Laken hls
oaLh, and assumed offlce as a Member of Lhe Pouse of 8epresenLaLlves, CCMLLLC's [urlsdlcLlon over elecLlons relaLlng Lo Lhe
elecLlon, reLurns and quallflcaLlons ends, and Lhe P8L1's own [urlsdlcLlon beglns. (Aggabao vs. CCMLLLC, 449 SC8A 400 (2007).

arty L|st representat|ve, effect of cont|nued
operat|on of the 2 thresho|d vote.

8arangay AssoclaLlon for naLlonal AdvancemenL and 1ransparency (8AnA1), C.8. no. 179271, and oLher case, !une 24,
2009, flled a eLlLlon Lo roclalm Lhe lull number of arLy-LlsL 8epresenLaLlves rovlded by Lhe ConsLlLuLlon. lL was denled by Lhe
CCMLLLC uslng as basls vetetoos leJetotloo lotty v. cOMlc whlch lnLerpreLs Lhe clause ln proporLlon Lo Lhelr LoLal number of
voLes" Lo be ln proporLlon Lo Lhe voLes of Lhe flrsL parLy. 1he peLlLloners conLended LhaL Lhe second clause of Sec. 11(b) of 8A 7941
provldes Lhe Lhose garnerlng more Lhan 2 of Lhe voLes shall be enLlLled Lo addlLlonal seaLs ln proporLlon Lo Lhelr LoLal number of
voLes. 1hey conLended LhaL Lhere should be a proclamaLlon of Lhe oLhers Lo compleLe Lhe 20 represenLaLlon of Lhe parLy llsL
groups as provlded by Lhe ConsLlLuLlon. 8uL Lo compuLe Lhe allocaLlon of addlLlonal seaLs uslng Lhe operaLlon of Lhe 2 Lhreshold
conLlnuously would defeaL Lhe alm of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon. ls Lhe conLenLlon of 8AnA1, eLc. correcL? Lxplaln.

Answer: ?es. ln compuLlng Lhe allocaLlon of add|t|ona| seats, Lhe conLlnued operaLlon of Lhe Lwo percenL Lhreshold for Lhe
dlsLrlbuLlon of Lhe addlLlonal seaLs as found ln Lhe second clause of SecLlon 11(b) of 8.A. no. 7941 ls unconst|tut|ona|. 1he Lwo
percenL Lhreshold makes lL maLhemaLlcally lmposslble Lo achleve Lhe maxlmum number of avallable parLy llsL seaLs when Lhe
number of avallable parLy llsL seaLs exceeds 30. 1he conLlnued operaLlon of Lhe Lwo percenL Lhreshold ln Lhe dlsLrlbuLlon of Lhe
addlLlonal seaLs frusLraLes Lhe aLLalnmenL of Lhe permlsslve celllng LhaL 20 of Lhe members of Lhe Pouse of 8epresenLaLlves shall
conslsL of parLy-llsL represenLaLlves.

1he 2 Lhreshold should be sLrlken down as unconsLlLuLlonal only ln relaLlon Lo Lhe dlsLrlbuLlon of Lhe addlLlonal seaLs as
found ln Lhe second clause of SecLlon 11(b) of 8.A. no. 7941. 1he Lwo percenL Lhreshold presenLs an unwarranLed obsLacle Lo Lhe
full lmplemenLaLlon of SecLlon 3(2), ArLlcle vl of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon and prevenLs Lhe aLLalnmenL of Lhe broadesL posslble
represenLaLlon of parLy, secLoral or group lnLeresLs ln Lhe Pouse of 8epresenLaLlves." (8arangay AssoclaLlon for naLlonal
AdvancemenL & 1ransparency (8AnA1), C.8. no. 179271, !une 24, 2009).

O - 5tote tbe ptoceJote lo Jetetmloloq tbe ollocotloo of seots lo tbe potty-llst tepteseototlves.

Answer: ln deLermlnlng Lhe allocaLlon of seaLs for parLy-llsL represenLaLlves under SecLlon 11 of 8.A. no. 7941, Lhe followlng
procedure shall be observed:

1. 1he parLles, organlzaLlons, and coallLlons shall be ranked from Lhe hlghesL Lo Lhe lowesL based on Lhe number of
voLes Lhey garnered durlng Lhe elecLlons.
2. 1he parLles, organlzaLlons, and coallLlons recelvlng aL leasL Lwo percenL (2) of Lhe LoLal voLes casL for Lhe parLy-
llsL sysLem shall be enLlLled Lo one guaranLeed seaL each.
3. 1hose garnerlng sufflclenL number of voLes, accordlng Lo Lhe ranklng ln paragraph 1, shall be enLlLled Lo
addlLlonal seaLs ln proporLlon Lo Lhelr LoLal number of voLes unLll all Lhe addlLlonal seaLs are allocaLed.
4. Lach parLy, organlzaLlon, or coallLlon shall be enLlLled Lo noL more Lhan Lhree (3) seaLs.

ln compuLlng Lhe addlLlonal seaLs, Lhe guaranLeed seaLs shall no longer be lncluded because Lhey have already been
allocaLed, aL one seaL each, Lo every Lwo-percenLer. 1hus, Lhe remalnlng avallable seaLs for allocaLlon as addlLlonal seaLs" are
Lhe maxlmum seaLs reserved under Lhe arLy LlsL SysLem less Lhe guaranLeed seaLs. lracLlonal seaLs are dlsregarded ln Lhe
absence of a provlslon ln 8.A. no. 7941 allowlng for a roundlng off of fracLlonal seaLs.

1wo steps |n second round of a||ocat|on of seats.

ln declarlng Lhe Lwo percenL Lhreshold unconsLlLuLlonal Lhe allocaLlon of addlLlonal seaLs ls noL llmlLed Lo Lhe Lwo-
percenLers. 1he percenLage of voLes garnered by each parLy-llsL candldaLe ls arrlved aL by dlvldlng Lhe number of voLes garnered
by each parLy by (13,930,900), Lhe LoLal number of voLes casL for parLy-llsL candldaLes. 1here are Lwo sLeps ln Lhe second round of
seaL allocaLlon. llrsL, Lhe percenLage ls mulLlplled by Lhe remalnlng avallable seaLs, 38, whlch ls Lhe dlfference beLween Lhe 33
maxlmum seaLs reserved under Lhe arLy-LlsL SysLem and Lhe 17 guaranLeed seaLs of Lhe Lwo-percenLers. 1he whole lnLeger of Lhe
producL of Lhe percenLage and of Lhe remalnlng avallable seaLs corresponds Lo a parLy's share ln Lhe remalnlng avallable seaLs.
Second, one parLy-llsL seaL ls asslgned Lo each of Lhe parLles nexL ln rank unLll all avallable seaLs are compleLely dlsLrlbuLed. We
dlsLrlbuLed all of Lhe remalnlng 38 seaLs are dlsLrlbuLed ln Lhe second round of seaL allocaLlon. llnally, Lhe Lhree-seaL cap ls
applled Lo deLermlne Lhe number of seaLs each quallfled parLy-llsL candldaLe ls enLlLled. (8arangay AssoclaLlon for naLlonal
AdvancemenL & 1ransparency (8AnA1), C.8. no. 179271, !une 24, 2009).

14 | a b r c . p o l l . 0 9 - 1 0 / c r y s


O - Moy tbe mojot polltlcol pottles pottlclpote lo tbe potty-llst system? xplolo.

Answer: ?es. nelLher Lhe ConsLlLuLlon nor 8.A. no. 7941 prohlblLs ma[or pollLlcal parLles from parLlclpaLlng ln Lhe parLy-llsL sysLem.
Cn Lhe conLrary, Lhe framers of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon clearly lnLended Lhe ma[or pollLlcal parLles Lo parLlclpaLe ln parLy-llsL elecLlons
Lhrough Lhelr secLoral wlngs. ln facL, Lhe members of Lhe ConsLlLuLlonal Commlsslon voLed down, 19-22, any permanenL secLoral
seaLs, and ln Lhe alLernaLlve Lhe reservaLlon of Lhe parLy-llsL sysLem Lo Lhe secLoral groups. ln deflnlng a parLy" LhaL parLlclpaLes ln
parLy-llsL elecLlons as elLher a pollLlcal parLy or a secLoral parLy," 8.A. no. 7941 also clearly lnLended LhaL ma[or pollLlcal parLles
wlll parLlclpaLe ln Lhe parLy-llsL elecLlons. Lxcludlng Lhe ma[or pollLlcal parLles ln parLy-llsL elecLlons ls manlfesLly agalnsL Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon, Lhe lnLenL of Lhe ConsLlLuLlonal Commlsslon, and 8.A. no. 7941. 1he CourL cannoL engage ln soclo-pollLlcal
englneerlng and [udlclally leglslaLe Lhe excluslon of ma[or pollLlcal parLles from Lhe parLy-llsL elecLlons ln paLenL vlolaLlon of Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon and Lhe law.

8ead LogeLher, 8.A. no. 7941 and Lhe dellberaLlons of Lhe ConsLlLuLlonal Commlsslon sLaLe LhaL ma[or pollLlcal parLles are
allowed Lo esLabllsh, or form coallLlons wlLh, secLoral organlzaLlons for elecLoral or pollLlcal purposes. 1here should noL be a
problem lf, for example, Lhe Llberal arLy parLlclpaLes ln Lhe parLy-llsL elecLlon Lhrough Lhe kabaLaang Llberal ng lllplnas (kALll),
lLs secLoral youLh wlng. 1he oLher ma[or pollLlcal parLles can Lhus organlze, or afflllaLe wlLh, Lhelr chosen secLor or secLors. 1o
furLher lllusLraLe, Lhe naclonallsLa arLy can esLabllsh a flsherfolk wlng Lo parLlclpaLe ln Lhe parLy-llsL elecLlon, and Lhls flsherfolk
wlng can fleld lLs flsherfolk nomlnees. kaballkaL ng Malayang lllplno (kAMl) can do Lhe same for Lhe urban poor. (8arangay
AssoclaLlon for naLlonal AdvancemenL & 1ransparency (8AnA1), C.8. no. 179271, !une 24, 2009).

O - lf tbete ls o potty-llst otqoolzotloo of tbe otboo poot, sboolJ tbe oomloee wollow lo povetty? xplolo.

Answer: no. under Sec. 9 of 8A 7941, lL ls noL necessary LhaL Lhe parLy-llsL organlzaLlons nomlnee wallow ln poverLy, desLlLuLlon
and lnflrmlLy as Lhere ls no flnanclal sLaLus requlred by Lhe law. lL ls enough LhaL Lhe nomlnee of Lhe secLoral parLy or organlzaLlon
or coallLlon belongs Lo Lhe marglnallzed and unrepresenLed secLors, LhaL ls, lf Lhe nomlnee represenLs Lhe flsherfolk, he or she
musL be flsherfolk, or lf Lhe nomlnee represenLs Lhe senlor clLlzens, he or she musL be a senlor clLlzen. (8arangay AssoclaLlon for
naLlonal AdvancemenL & 1ransparency (8AnA1), C.8. no. 179271, and oLher cases, !une 24, 2009).

O - 5tote tbe ootote of tbe 20X ollocotloo of potty-llst tepteseototlves. xplolo.

Answer: under Lhe ConsLlLuLlon, Lhe Pouse of 8epresenLaLlves shall be composed of noL more Lhan 230 members, unless
oLherwlse flxed by law. 1he 20 allocaLlon of parLy-llsL represenLaLlves ls merely a celllng, lL cannoL be more Lhan 20 of Lhe
members of Lhe Pouse of 8epresenLaLlves. 1he conLlnued exlsLence of a provlslon whlch wlll sysLemaLlcally prevenL Lhe
consLlLuLlonally allocaLed 20 parLy-llsL represenLaLlves from belng fllled up cannoL be allowed. 1he 3-seaL capaclLy as a llmlLaLlon
Lo Lhe number of seaLs LhaL a quallfled parLy-llsL organlzaLlon may occupy remalns a valld sLaLuLory devlce LhaL prevenLs any parLy
from domlnaLlng Lhe parLy-llsL elecLlons. (8arangay AssoclaLlon for naLlonal AdvancemenL & 1ransparency (8AnA1), C.8. no.
179271, and oLher cases, !une 24, 2009).

kA 9369 does not v|o|ate Sect|on 26(1), Art|c|e VI of
the Const|tut|on

C - A peLlLlon seeklng Lo declare 8A 9369, Lhe AuLomaLlon Law was flled alleglng LhaL Lhe LlLle of 8A 9369 ls mlsleadlng because lL
speaks of poll auLomaLlon buL conLalns subsLanLlal provlslons deallng wlLh Lhe manual canvasslng of elecLlon reLurns. eLlLloner
also alleged LhaL SecLlons 34, 37, 38, and 43 are nelLher embraced ln Lhe LlLle nor germane Lo Lhe sub[ecL maLLer of 8A 9369.

8oLh Lhe CCMLLLC and Lhe CSC malnLalned LhaL Lhe LlLle of 8A 9369 ls broad enough Lo encompass Loplcs whlch deal noL
only wlLh Lhe auLomaLlon process buL wlLh everyLhlng relaLed Lo lLs purpose encouraglng a LransparenL, credlble, falr, and accuraLe
elecLlons. 8ule on Lhe conLenLlon. Lxplaln.

Answer: 1he conLenLlon ls noL correcL. 1he consLlLuLlonal requlremenL LhaL every blll passed by Lhe Congress shall embrace only
one sub[ecL whlch shall be expressed ln Lhe LlLle Lhereof" has always been glven a pracLlcal raLher Lhan a Lechnlcal consLrucLlon.
1he requlremenL ls saLlsfled lf Lhe LlLle ls comprehenslve enough Lo lnclude sub[ecLs relaLed Lo Lhe general purpose whlch Lhe
sLaLuLe seeks Lo achleve. 1he LlLle of a law does noL have Lo be an lndex of lLs conLenLs and wlll sufflce lf Lhe maLLers embodled ln
Lhe LexL are relevanL Lo each oLher and may be lnferred from Lhe LlLle. Moreover, a LlLle whlch declares a sLaLuLe Lo be an acL Lo
amend a speclfled code ls sufflclenL and Lhe preclse naLure of Lhe amendaLory acL need noL be furLher sLaLed. (8arangay
AssoclaLlon for naLlonal AdvancemenL and 1ransparency (8AnA1) v. CCMLLLC, C.8. no. 177308, AugusL 7, 2009).

Sect|ons 37 and 38 do not v|o|ate Sect|on 17, Art|c|e
VI and aragraph 7, Sect|on 4, Art|c|e VII of the
Const|tut|on

O - lt wos otqoeJ tbot sectloos J7 ooJ J8 vlolote tbe coostltotloo by lmpoltloq tbe powets of tbe lteslJeotlol lectotol 1tlboool
(l1) ooJ tbe 5eoote lectotol 1tlboool (51). AccotJloq to petltlooet, ooJet tbe omeoJeJ ptovlsloos, cooqtess os tbe Notloool
8ootJ of coovossets fot tbe electloo of lteslJeot ooJ vlce lteslJeot (cooqtess), ooJ tbe cOMlc eo booc os tbe Notloool 8ootJ of
coovossets (cOMlc eo booc), fot tbe electloo of seootots moy oow eotettolo pte-ptoclomotloo coses lo tbe electloo of tbe
lteslJeot, vlce lteslJeot, ooJ 5eootots. letltlooet coocloJeJ tbot lo eotettololoq pte-ptoclomotloo coses, cooqtess ooJ tbe comelec

1S | a b r c . p o l l . 0 9 - 1 0 / c r y s

eo booc ooJetmloeJ tbe loJepeoJeoce ooJ eoctoocbeJ opoo tbe jotlsJlctloo of tbe l1 ooJ tbe 51. ls tbe cooteotloo cottect?
wby?

Answer: 1he conLenLlon ls noL correcL. Congress and Lhe CCMLLLC en banc do noL encroach upon Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe L1 and
Lhe SL1. 1here ls no confllcL of [urlsdlcLlon slnce Lhe powers of Congress and Lhe CCMLLLC en banc, on one hand, and Lhe L1 and
Lhe SL1, on Lhe oLher, are exerclsed on dlfferenL occaslons and for dlfferenL purposes. 1he L1 ls Lhe sole [udge of all conLesLs
relaLlng Lo Lhe elecLlon, reLurns and quallflcaLlons of Lhe resldenL or vlce resldenL. 1he SL1 ls Lhe sole [udge of all conLesLs
relaLlng Lo Lhe elecLlon, reLurns, and quallflcaLlons of members of Lhe SenaLe. 1he [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe L1 and Lhe SL1 can only be
lnvoked once Lhe wlnnlng presldenLlal, vlce presldenLlal or senaLorlal candldaLes have been proclalmed. Cn Lhe oLher hand, under
SecLlon 37, Congress and Lhe CCMLLLC en banc shall deLermlne only Lhe auLhenLlclLy and due execuLlon of Lhe cerLlflcaLes of
canvass. Congress and Lhe CCMLLLC en banc shall exerclse Lhls power before Lhe proclamaLlon of Lhe wlnnlng presldenLlal, vlce
presldenLlal, and senaLorlal candldaLes. (8arangay AssoclaLlon for naLlonal AdvancemenL and 1ransparency (8AnA1) v. CCMLLLC,
C.8. no. 177308, AugusL 7, 2009).

ua||f|cat|ons of a member of Congress, pet|t|on for
quo worronto |s remedy to the nkL1.

C - uanllo 8amon lernandez flled hls cerLlflcaLe of candldacy for represenLaLlve of Lhe llrsL ulsLrlcL of Laguna. ln hls cerLlflcaLe of
candldacy, he sLaLed LhaL he ls a resldenL of vllla 1oledo Subdlvlslon, 8arangay 8allbago, SLa. 8osa, Laguna. A peLlLlon Lo deny due
course Lo hls cerLlflcaLe of candldacy was flled before Lhe CCMLLLC, Laguna alleglng maLerlal mlsrepresenLaLlon as ln Lhe pasL
elecLlons, he declared agsan[an, Laguna as hls address. Pe llkewlse malnLalns a house ouLslde of Lhe llrsL ulsLrlcL, parLlcularly ln
Cabuyao, Laguna. Pe was proclalmed as Lhe duly elecLed 8epresenLaLlve of Lhe llrsL ulsLrlcL of Laguna. A peLlLlon for poo wottooto
was flled wlLh Lhe P8L1 praylng LhaL he be declared lnellglble Lo hold Lhe poslLlon slnce he lacked Lhe one-year resldence
requlremenL. AL Lhe hearlng, wlLnesses were presenLed LhaL he ls noL from SLa. 8osa, LhaL he was noL ofLenly seen ln vllla 1oledo
Subdlvlslon. Pe presenLed evldence, however, LhaL he ls a resldenL of sald places, LesLlfled Lo by some wlLnesses, a cerLlflcaLlon by
Lhe resldenL of Lhe Pomeowners AssoclaLlon and LhaL he boughL a properLy aL 8el-Alr SLa. 8osa, Laguna and presenLed a lease
conLracL over a house belng renLed by hls famlly. 1he lessor was presenLed Loo, Lo LesLlfy LhaL he ls a resldenL of SLa. 8osa. 1he
P8L1 declared hlm lnellglble as he lacked Lhe requlred resldence. 8efore Lhe SC he conLended LhaL Lhe CCMLLLC has already
passed upon hls quallflcaLlon, Lhus, Lhe P8L1 should have dlsmlssed Lhe case. ls Lhe conLenLlon correcL? Lxplaln.

Answer: ?es. 1he 1987 ConsLlLuLlon expllclLly provldes under ArLlcle vl, SecLlon 17 Lhereof LhaL Lhe P8L1 and Lhe SenaLe LlecLoral
1rlbunal (SL1) shall be Lhe sole joJqe of all conLesLs relaLlng Lo Lhe elecLlon, reLurns, and poollflcotloos of Lhelr respecLlve
members. 1he auLhorlLy conferred upon Lhe LlecLoral 1rlbunal ls full, clear and compleLe. 1he use of Lhe word sole emphaslzes Lhe
excluslvlLy of Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of Lhese 1rlbunals, (Co v. P8L1, C.8. no. 92191-92, !uly 30, 1991, 199 SC8A 692), whlch ls conferred
upon Lhe P8L1 and Lhe SL1 afLer elecLlons and Lhe proclamaLlon of Lhe wlnnlng candldaLes. A candldaLe who has noL been
proclalmed and who has noL Laken hls oaLh of offlce cannoL be sald Lo be a member of Lhe Pouse of 8epresenLaLlves. (Co v. P8L1).

A peLlLlon for poo wottooto ls wlLhln Lhe excluslve [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe P8L1, and cannoL be consldered forum shopplng
even lf Lhe CCMLLLC had already passed upon ln admlnlsLraLlve or quasl-[udlclal proceedlngs Lhe lssue of Lhe quallflcaLlon of Lhe
Member of Lhe Pouse of 8epresenLaLlves whlle Lhe laLLer was sLlll a candldaLe. (8ep. uanllo 8amon lernandez v. P8L1, eL al., C.8.
no. 187478, uecember 21, 2009).

O - wos be oble to comply wltb tbe teslJeoce tepoltemeot? xplolo.

Cne of Lhe quallflcaLlons of a member of Lhe Pouse of 8epresenLaLlves found ln ArLlcle vl, SecLlon 6 of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon ls
LhaL, he musL be a resldenL Lhereof for a perlod of noL less Lhan one year lmmedlaLely precedlng Lhe day of Lhe elecLlon.

1he facL LhaL a few barangay healLh workers aLLesLed LhaL Lhey had falled Lo see peLlLloner whenever Lhey allegedly made
Lhe rounds ln vllla de 1oledo ls of no momenL, especlally conslderlng LhaL Lhere were wlLnesses (lncludlng peLlLloner's nelghbors ln
vllla de 1oledo) LhaL were ln Lurn presenLed by peLlLloner Lo prove LhaL he was acLually a resldenL of vllla de 1oledo, ln Lhe address
he sLaLed ln hls CCC. 1he law does noL requlre a person Lo be ln hls home LwenLy-four (24) hours a day, seven days a week, ln
order Lo fulflll Lhe resldency requlremenL.

Moreover, as Lhls CourL sald ln komoolJez-Motcos v. cOMlc:

lL ls Lhe facL of resldence, noL a sLaLemenL ln a cerLlflcaLe of candldacy, whlch oughL Lo be declslve ln
deLermlnlng wheLher or noL an lndlvldual has saLlsfled Lhe consLlLuLlon's resldency quallflcaLlon
requlremenL. 1he sald sLaLemenL becomes maLerlal only when Lhere ls or appears Lo be a dellberaLe aLLempL
Lo mlslead, mlslnform, or hlde a facL whlch would oLherwlse render a candldaLe lnellglble.

1he P8L1 puL undue emphasls on Lhe facL LhaL peLlLloner ls only leaslng a Lownhouse ln SLa. 8osa whlle he owns houses ln
agsan[an and Cabuyao. Pls ownershlp of properLles ln oLher places has been Laken Lo mean LhaL peLlLloner dld noL lnLend Lo
make SLa. 8osa hls permanenL resldence or LhaL he had noL abandoned hls domlclle of orlgln.

roperty ownersh|p not a requ|rement to run for
pub||c off|ce.


16 | a b r c . p o l l . 0 9 - 1 0 / c r y s

1he ConsLlLuLlon does noL requlre a congresslonal candldaLe Lo be a properLy owner ln Lhe dlsLrlcL where he seeks Lo run
buL only LhaL he resides ln LhaL dlsLrlcL for aL leasL a year prlor Lo elecLlon day. 1o use ownershlp of properLy ln Lhe dlsLrlcL as Lhe
deLermlnaLlve lndlclum of permanence of domlclle or resldence lmplles LhaL only Lhe landed can esLabllsh compllance wlLh Lhe
resldency requlremenL. 1he CourL would be, ln effecL, lmposlng a properLy requlremenL Lo Lhe rlghL Lo hold publlc offlce, whlch
properLy requlremenL would be unconsLlLuLlonal.

1hls case musL be dlsLlngulshed from Apoloo v. cOMlc and uomloo v. cOMlc, C.8. no. 134013, !uly 19, 1999, 310
SC8A 346, where Lhe dlsquallfled candldaLe was shown Lo be merely leaslng a resldence ln Lhe place where he soughL Lo run for
offlce. ln Apoloo and uomloo, Lhere appeared Lo be no oLher maLerlal reason for Lhe candldaLe Lo lease resldenLlal properLy ln Lhe
place where he flled hls CCC, excepL Lo fulflll Lhe resldency requlremenL under elecLlon laws.

urpose of res|dence requ|rement.
1o be sure, Colleqo v. veto, C.8. no. L-48641, november 24, 1941, 73 hll. 433 decreed LhaL:

1he manlfesL lnLenL of Lhe law ln flxlng a resldence quallflcaLlon ls Lo exclude a sLranger or newcomer,
unacqualnLed wlLh Lhe condlLlons and needs of a communlLy and noL ldenLlfled wlLh Lhe laLLer, from an elecLlve
offlce Lo serve LhaL communlLy, and when the ev|dence on the a||eged |ack of res|dence qua||f|cat|on |s weak or
|nconc|us|ve and |t c|ear|y appears, as |n the |nstant case, that the purpose of the |aw wou|d not be thwarted
by upho|d|ng the r|ght to the off|ce, the w||| of the e|ectorate shou|d be respected. xxx xxx xxx

ltlvolJo llkewlse prescrlbed LhaL:

xxx xxx xxx 1o successfully challenge a wlnnlng candldaLe's quallflcaLlons, Lhe pet|t|oner must c|ear|y
demonstrate that the |ne||g|b|||ty |s so patent|y antagon|st|c

to const|tut|ona| and |ega| pr|nc|p|es that
overr|d|ng such |ne||g|b|||ty and thereby g|v|ng effect to the apparent w||| of the peop|e, wou|d u|t|mate|y
create greater pre[ud|ce Lo Lhe very democraLlc lnsLlLuLlons and [urlsLlc LradlLlons LhaL our ConsLlLuLlon and laws
so zealously proLecL and promoLe. xxx xxx xxx

ln 1otoyoo, C.8. no. 137329, AugusL 9, 2000, 337 SC8A 374, Lhe CourL had Lhe occaslon Lo say LhaL:

1he ConsLlLuLlon and Lhe law requlres resldence as a quallflcaLlon for seeklng and holdlng elecLlve publlc
offlce, ln order Lo glve candldaLes Lhe opporLunlLy Lo be famlllar wlLh Lhe needs, dlfflculLles, asplraLlons,
poLenLlals for growLh and all maLLers vlLal Lo Lhe welfare of Lhelr consLlLuencles, llkewlse, lL enables Lhe
elecLoraLe Lo evaluaLe Lhe offlce seekers' quallflcaLlons and flLness for Lhe [ob Lhey asplre for. xxx xxx xxx

1he resldency requlremenL ls a means Lo prevenL a sLranger or newcomer from holdlng offlce on Lhe assumpLlon LhaL
such sLranger or newcomer would be lnsufflclenLly acqualnLed wlLh Lhe needs of hls prospecLlve consLlLuenLs. Powever, lL ls
approprlaLe Lo polnL ouL aL Lhls [uncLure LhaL aslde from peLlLloner's acLual, physlcal presence ln SLa. 8osa for more Lhan a year
prlor Lo elecLlon day, he has demonsLraLed LhaL he has subsLanLlal Lles Lo SLa. 8osa and Lhe llrsL ulsLrlcL of Laguna for an even
longer perlod Lhan LhaL. eLlLloner has buslness lnLeresLs ln SLa. 8osa comprlsed of resLauranLs and a resldenLlal properLy for lease.
eLlLloner has Lwo chlldren sLudylng ln SLa. 8osa schools even before 2006. 1hese clrcumsLances provlded peLlLloner wlLh maLerlal
reasons Lo frequenLly vlslL Lhe area and evenLually Lake up resldence ln Lhe sald dlsLrlcL. SlgnlflcanLly, peLlLloner prevlously served
as 8oard Member and vlce-Covernor for Lhe rovlnce of Laguna, of whlch Lhe llrsL ulsLrlcL and SLa. 8osa are a parL. lL sLands Lo
reason LhaL ln hls prevlous elecLed poslLlons peLlLloner has acqulred knowledge of Lhe needs and asplraLlons of Lhe resldenLs of Lhe
llrsL ulsLrlcL who were among hls consLlLuenLs.

Slmply puL, peLlLloner could noL be consldered a sLranger" Lo Lhe communlLy whlch he soughL Lo represenL and LhaL evll
LhaL Lhe resldency requlremenL was deslgned Lo prevenL ls noL presenL ln Lhls case.

ln 5looco v. Molo, C.8. no. 133691, SepLember 27, 1999, 313 SC8A 282 Lo wlL.


When a candldaLe has recelved popular mandaLe, overwhelmlngly and clearly expressed, all posslble
doubLs should be resolved ln favor of Lhe candldaLe's ellglblllLy for Lo rule oLherwlse ls Lo defeaL Lhe wlll of Lhe
people. Above and beyond all, Lhe deLermlnaLlon of Lhe Lrue wlll of Lhe elecLoraLe should be paramounL. lL ls
Lhelr volce, noL ours or of anyone else, LhaL musL prevall. 1hls, ln essence, ls Lhe democracy we conLlnue Lo hold
sacred. (8ep. uanllo 8amon lernandez v. P8L1, eL al., C.8. no. 187478, uecember 21, 2009).

Senator can be cha|r of NkC.

O - lf o 5eootot ls tbe beoJ of tbe lblllpploe Notloool keJ ctoss, ls be vlolotloq tbe tole tbot be coooot occopy ooy posltloo lo
qovetomeot ot qovetomeot-owoeJ ot coottolleJ cotpototloos? xplolo.

Answer: no, because Lhe n8C ls noL a governmenL-owned or conLrolled corporaLlon, buL a prlvaLely owned, prlvaLely funded, and
prlvaLely run charlLable organlzaLlon. 1he vasL ma[orlLy of Lhe Lhousands of n8C members are prlvaLe lndlvlduals lncludlng
sLudenLs. under lLs charLer, Lhose who conLrlbuLe Lo Lhe annual fund campalgn of Lhe n8C are enLlLled Lo membershlp ln Lhe
n8C for one year.


17 | a b r c . p o l l . 0 9 - 1 0 / c r y s

8ellance on Lhe case of compoteJooJo v. Nlkc, 37 hll. 91 (1999) ls mlsplaced.

ln such case, lL was ruled LhaL Lhe n8C ls a governmenL-owned or conLrolled corporaLlon. ln rullng LhaL Lhe n8C ls a
governmenL-owned or conLrolled corporaLlon, Lhe slmple LesL used was wheLher Lhe corporaLlon was creaLed by lLs own speclal
charLer for Lhe exerclse of a publlc funcLlon or by lncorporaLlon under Lhe general corporaLlon law. Slnce Lhe n8C was creaLed
under a speclal charLer, Lhe CourL Lhen ruled LhaL lL ls a governmenL corporaLlon. Powever, Lhe compoteJooJo rullng falled Lo
conslder Lhe deflnlLlon of a governmenL-owned or conLrolled corporaLlon as provlded under SecLlon 2(13) of Lhe lnLroducLory
rovlslons of Lhe AdmlnlsLraLlve Code of 1987:

SLC. 2. Ceoetol 1etms uefloeJ. - x x x

(13) 6overnment-owned or contro//ed corporotion refers to any agency organ|zed as a stock or non-stock
corporat|on, vested w|th funct|ons re|at|ng to pub||c needs whether governmenta| or propr|etary |n nature,
and owned by the Government d|rect|y or through |ts |nstrumenta||t|es e|ther who||y, or where app||cab|e as |n
the case of stock corporat|ons, to the extent of at |east f|fty-one (S1) percent of |ts cap|ta| stock."

A governmenL-owned or conLrolled corporaLlon musL be owned by Lhe governmenL, and ln Lhe case of a sLock corporaLlon, aL
leasL a ma[orlLy of lLs caplLal sLock musL be owned by Lhe governmenL. ln Lhe case of a non-sLock corporaLlon, by analogy aL leasL a
ma[orlLy of Lhe members musL be governmenL offlclals holdlng such membershlp by appolnLmenL or deslgnaLlon by Lhe
governmenL. under Lhls crlLerlon, Lhe governmenL does noL own or conLrol n8C. (Llban, eL al. v. Cordon, C.8. no. 173332, !uly
13, 2009).

Ak1ICLL VII
LkLCU1IVL DLAk1MLN1

Nature of the power to deport, Act of State, sub[ect
to [ud|c|a| rev|ew.

ln SecreLary of !usLlce, eL al. vs. ChrlsLopher 8oruga, C.8. no. 166199, Aprll 24, 2009, Lhe respondenL was soughL Lo be
deporLed for vlolaLlon of SecLlon 37(a)4 of CA no. 613 oLherwlse known as Lhe hlllpplne lmmlgraLlon AcL of 1940. lL was alleged
LhaL he was convlcLed and/or senLenced for unlform ConLrolled SubsLance AcL ln connecLlon wlLh hls belng urug 1rafflcker and/or
Courler of prohlblLed drugs ln Lhe SenaLe of WashlngLon, unlLed SLaLes of Amerlca, Lhus, maklng hlm an undeslrable allen and/or a
publlc burden ln vlolaLlon of SecLlon 37(4) [slc] of Lhe hlllpplne lmmlgraLlon AcL of 1940, as amended.

1he 8oard of Commlssloners ordered hls deporLaLlon afLer Lrlal. 1he uC! on appeal afflrmed Lhe order. 8y way of a
eLlLlon for CerLlorarl and rohlblLlon he wenL Lo Lhe CA whlch reversed Lhe rullng of Lhe uC! holdlng LhaL Lhere was no valld and
legal ground for Lhe deporLaLlon of respondenL slnce Lhere was no vlolaLlon of SecLlon 37(a)(4) of Lhe hlllpplne lmmlgraLlon AcL of
1940, as amended, because respondenL was noL convlcLed or senLenced for a vlolaLlon of Lhe law on prohlblLed drugs slnce Lhe
u.S. CourL dlsmlssed Lhe case for vlolaLlon of Lhe unlform ConLrolled SubsLances AcL ln Lhe SLaLe of WashlngLon, uSA flled agalnsL
respondenL, LhaL peLlLloners furLher falled Lo presenL or aLLach Lo Lhelr pleadlngs any documenL whlch would supporL Lhelr
allegaLlons LhaL respondenL enLered lnLo a plea bargaln wlLh Lhe u.S. rosecuLor for deferred senLence nor dld Lhey aLLach Lo Lhe
record Lhe alleged order or [udgmenL of Lhe u.S. CourL whlch would show Lhe convlcLlon of respondenL for vlolaLlon of Lhe
prohlblLed drugs law ln Lhe uSA, LhaL even lf respondenL was convlcLed and senLenced for Lhe alleged offense, hls deporLaLlon
under SecLlon 37(a)(4) ls lmproper, slnce Lhe prohlblLed drugs law, Lhen 8epubllc AcL no. 6423 or Lhe uangerous urug AcL of
1972", LhaL alLhough Lhe 8CC ls cloLhed wlLh excluslve auLhorlLy Lo declde as Lo Lhe rlghL of a forelgner Lo enLer Lhe counLry, sLlll,
such execuLlve offlcers musL acL wlLhln Lhe scope of Lhelr auLhorlLy or Lhelr declslon ls a nulllLy.

8efore Lhe SC, Lhe peLlLloners conLended LhaL Lhe 8ureau of lmmlgraLlon has Lhe excluslve auLhorlLy Lo declde wheLher a
forelgner may be deporLed and such proceedlngs are beyond [udlclal revlew. ls Lhe conLenLlon correcL? Why?

Peld: no. lL ls beyond cavll LhaL Lhe 8l has Lhe excluslve auLhorlLy and [urlsdlcLlon Lo Lry and hear cases agalnsL an alleged allen,
and LhaL Lhe 8CC has [urlsdlcLlon over deporLaLlon proceedlngs. noneLheless, ArLlcle vlll, SecLlon 1 of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon has vesLed
power of [udlclal revlew ln Lhe Supreme CourL and Lhe lower courLs such as Lhe CA, as esLabllshed by law. AlLhough Lhe courLs are
wlLhouL power Lo dlrecLly declde maLLers over whlch full dlscreLlonary auLhorlLy has been delegaLed Lo Lhe leglslaLlve or execuLlve
branch of Lhe governmenL and are noL empowered Lo execuLe absoluLely Lhelr own [udgmenL from LhaL of Congress or of Lhe
resldenL, (1aLad vs. SecreLary of Lhe ueparLmenL of Lnergy, C.8. no. 124360, november 3, 1997, 281 SC8A 330, 347, Ledesma vs.
CA, C.8. no. 113216, SepLember 3, 1997, 278 SC8A 636, 681, 1anada vs. Angara, C.8. no. 118293, May 2, 1997, 272 SC8A 18, 48-
49), Lhe CourL may look lnLo and resolve quesLlons of wheLher or noL such [udgmenL has been made wlLh grave abuse of
dlscreLlon, when Lhe acL of Lhe leglslaLlve or execuLlve deparLmenL ls conLrary Lo Lhe ConsLlLuLlon, Lhe law or [urlsprudence, or
when execuLed whlmslcally, caprlclously or arblLrarlly ouL of mallce, lll wlll or personal blas. (8epubllc vs. Carcla, C.8. no. 167741,
!uly 12, 2007, 327 SC8A 493, 302, lnformaLlon 1echnology loundaLlon of Lhe hlllpplnes vs. Commlsslon on LlecLlons, C.8. no.
139139, !anuary 13, 2004, 419 SC8A 141, 148, uomlngo vs. Scheer, 466 hll. 233 (2004),
Pouse of Sara Lee vs. 8ey, 300 SC8A 419 (2006).

k|ght to enter the country |s a matter of pr|v||ege.


18 | a b r c . p o l l . 0 9 - 1 0 / c r y s

1he seLLled rule ls LhaL Lhe enLry or sLay of allens ln Lhe hlllpplnes ls merely a prlvllege and a maLLer of grace, such
prlvllege ls noL absoluLe or permanenL and may be revoked. Powever, allens may be expelled or deporLed from Lhe hlllpplnes
only on grounds and ln Lhe manner provlded for by Lhe ConsLlLuLlon, Lhe hlllpplne lmmlgraLlon AcL of 1940, as amended, and
admlnlsLraLlve lssuances pursuanL LhereLo.

lL musL be remembered LhaL allens seeklng enLry ln Lhe hlllpplnes do noL acqulre Lhe rlghL Lo be admlLLed lnLo Lhe
counLry by Lhe slmple passage of Llme. When an allen, such as respondenL, has already physlcally galned enLry ln Lhe counLry, buL
such enLry ls laLer found unlawful or devold of legal basls, Lhe allen can be excluded anyLlme afLer lL ls found LhaL he was noL
lawfully admlsslble aL Lhe Llme of hls enLry. (8oard of Commlssloners vs. uela 8osa, 197 SC8A 833 (1991). Lvery soverelgn power
has Lhe lnherenL power Lo exclude allens from lLs LerrlLory upon such grounds as lL may deem proper for lLs self-preservaLlon or
publlc lnLeresL. (Lao 1an 8un vs. labre, 81 hll. 682 (1948). 1he power Lo deporL allens ls an acL of SLaLe, an acL done by or under
Lhe auLhorlLy of Lhe soverelgn power. (ln 8e McCulloch ulck, 38 hll. 41 (1918). lL ls a pollce measure agalnsL undeslrable allens
whose conLlnued presence ln Lhe counLry ls found Lo be ln[urlous Lo Lhe publlc good and Lhe domesLlc LranqulllLy of Lhe people.
(lorbes vs. Chuoco 1laco, 16 hll. 334 (1910)).

CIVIL SLkVICL LAW

Appo|ntment |n the C|v|| Serv|ce.

Cnce agaln, Lhe SC ln Amores vs. CSC, eL al., C.8. no. 170093, Aprll 29, 2009, eralLa, !, had Lhe occaslon Lo say LhaL a
permanenL appolnLmenL ln Lhe clvll servlce ls lssued Lo a person who has meL Lhe requlremenLs of Lhe poslLlon Lo whlch Lhe
appolnLmenL ls made ln accordance wlLh law and Lhe rules lssued pursuanL LhereLo. An appolnLmenL ls permanenL where Lhe
appolnLee meeLs all Lhe requlremenLs for Lhe poslLlon Lo whlch he ls belng appolnLed, lncludlng Lhe approprlaLe ellglblllLy
prescrlbed, and lL ls Lemporary where Lhe appolnLee meeLs all Lhe requlremenLs for Lhe poslLlon excepL only Lhe approprlaLe clvll
servlce ellglblllLy.

1he mere facL LhaL a parLlcular poslLlon belongs Lo Lhe career servlce does noL auLomaLlcally confer securlLy of Lenure on
lLs occupanL. Such rlghL wlll have Lo depend on Lhe naLure of hls appolnLmenL, whlch ln Lurn depends on hls ellglblllLy or lack of lL.
A person who does noL have Lhe requlslLe quallflcaLlons for Lhe poslLlon cannoL be appolnLed Lo lL ln Lhe flrsL place or, only as an
excepLlon Lo Lhe rule, may be appolnLed Lo lL ln an acLlng capaclLy ln Lhe absence of approprlaLe ellglbles.

O - wbot ote tbe two kloJs of sospeosloo?

Answer: 1here are Lwo klnds of prevenLlve suspenslon of governmenL employees charged wlLh offenses punlshable by removal or
suspenslon, vlz. (1) prevenLlve suspenslon pendlng lnvesLlgaLlon, and (2) prevenLlve suspenslon pendlng appeal lf Lhe penalLy
lmposed by Lhe dlsclpllnlng auLhorlLy ls suspenslon or dlsmlssal and, afLer revlew, Lhe respondenL ls exoneraLed. revenLlve
suspenslon pendlng lnvesLlgaLlon ls noL a penalLy. lL ls a measure lnLended Lo enable Lhe dlsclpllnlng auLhorlLy Lo lnvesLlgaLe
charges agalnsL respondenL by prevenLlng Lhe laLLer from lnLlmldaLlng or ln any way lnfluenclng wlLnesses agalnsL hlm. lf Lhe
lnvesLlgaLlon ls noL flnlshed and a declslon ls noL rendered wlLhln LhaL perlod, Lhe suspenslon wlll be llfLed and Lhe respondenL wlll
auLomaLlcally be relnsLaLed. lf afLer lnvesLlgaLlon, respondenL ls found lnnocenL of Lhe charges and ls exoneraLed, he should be
relnsLaLed. (CSC v. Alfonso, C.8. no. 179432, !une 11, 2009).

LLLC1ICN LAWS
CCMLLLC

Cand|date's qua||f|cat|on.

Manuel 8. !apzon (!apzon) and !alme S. 1y (1y) were candldaLes for Lhe Cfflce of Mayor of Lhe MunlclpallLy of Ceneral
MacarLhur, LasLern Samar, ln Lhe local elecLlons held on 14 May 2007.

Cn 13 !une 2007, !apzon flled a eLlLlon Lo dlsquallfy and/or cancel 1y's CerLlflcaLe of Candldacy on Lhe ground of maLerlal
mlsrepresenLaLlon. Pe averred LhaL 1y was a former naLural-born llllplno, havlng been born on 9 CcLober 1943 ln Lhe MunlclpallLy
of Ceneral MacarLhur, LasLern Samar. 1y evenLually mlgraLed Lo Lhe unlLed SLaLes and became a clLlzen Lhereof. 1y had been
resldlng ln Lhe uSA for Lhe lasL 23 years. When 1y flled hls CerLlflcaLe of Candldacy on 28 March 2007, he falsely represenLed
Lhereln LhaL he was a resldenL of 8arangay 6, oblaclon, Ceneral MacarLhur, LasLern Samar, for one year before 14 May 2007, and
was noL a permanenL resldenL or lmmlgranL of any forelgn counLry. Whlle 1y may have applled for Lhe reacqulslLlon of hls
hlllpplne clLlzenshlp, he never acLually reslded ln 8arangay 6, oblaclon, Ceneral MacarLhur, LasLern Samar, for a perlod of one
year lmmedlaLely precedlng Lhe daLe of elecLlon as requlred under SecLlon 39 of 8epubllc AcL no. 7160, oLherwlse known as Lhe
Local CovernmenL Code of 1991. ln facL, even afLer flllng hls appllcaLlon for reacqulslLlon of hls hlllpplne clLlzenshlp, 1y conLlnued
Lo make Lrlps Lo Lhe uSA, Lhe mosL recenL of whlch was on 31 CcLober 2006 lasLlng unLll 20 !anuary 2007. Moreover, alLhough 1y
already Look hls CaLh of Alleglance Lo Lhe 8epubllc of Lhe hlllplnes, he conLlnued Lo comporL hlmself as an Amerlcan clLlzen as
proven by hls Lravel records. Pe had also falled Lo renounce hls forelgn clLlzenshlp as requlred by 8epubllc AcL no. 9223, oLherwlse
known as Lhe ClLlzenshlp 8eLenLlon and 8eacqulslLlon AcL of 2003, or relaLed laws. Pence, !apzon prayed for ln hls eLlLlon LhaL Lhe
CCMLLLC order Lhe dlsquallflcaLlon of 1y from runnlng for publlc offlce and Lhe cancellaLlon of Lhe laLLer's CerLlflcaLlon of
Candldacy.


19 | a b r c . p o l l . 0 9 - 1 0 / c r y s

Powever, 1y execuLed on 19 March 2007 a duly noLarlzed 8enunclaLlon of lorelgn ClLlzenshlp. Clven Lhe aforemenLloned
facLs, 1y argued LhaL he had reacqulred hls hlllpplne clLlzenshlp and renounced hls Amerlcan clLlzenshlp, and he had been a
resldenL of Lhe MunlclpallLy of Ceneral MacarLhur, LasLern Same, for more Lhan one year prlor Lo Lhe 14 May 2007 elecLlons.
1herefore, 1y soughL Lhe dlsmlssal of !apzon's eLlLlon.

!apzon asserLed LhaL 1y dld noL meeL Lhe one-year resldency requlremenL for runnlng as a mayoralLy candldaLe ln Lhe 14
May 2007 local elecLlons. 1he one-year resldency requlremenL for Lhose runnlng for publlc offlce cannoL be walved or llberally
applled ln favor of dual clLlzens. ConsequenLly, !apzon belleved he was Lhe only remalnlng candldaLe for Lhe Cfflce of Mayor of Lhe
MunlclpallLy of Ceneral MacarLhur, LasLern Samar, and ls Lhe only placer ln Lhe 14 May 2007 local elecLlons. ls hls conLenLlon
correcL? Why?

Answer: no. 1y has complled wlLh Lhe requlremenL of express renunclaLlon of forelgn clLlzenshlp when he execuLed a documenL of
renunclaLlon on March 19, 2007.

lor a naLural born llllplno, who reacqulred or reLalned hls hlllpplne clLlzenshlp under 8epubllc AcL no. 9223, Lo run for
publlc offlce, he musL: (1) meeL Lhe quallflcaLlons for holdlng such publlc offlce as requlred by Lhe ConsLlLuLlon and exlsLlng laws,
and (2) make a personal and sworn renunclaLlon of any and all forelgn clLlzenshlps before any publlc offlcer auLhorlzed Lo
admlnlsLer an oaLh.

1haL 1y complled wlLh Lhe second requlremenL ls beyond quesLlon. Cn 19 March 2007, he personally execuLed a
8enunclaLlon of lorelgn ClLlzenshlp before a noLary publlc. 8y Lhe Llme he flled hls CerLlflcaLe of Candldacy for Lhe Cfflce of Mayor
of Lhe MunlclpallLy of Ceneral MacarLhur, LasLern Samar, on 28 March 2007, he had already effecLlvely renounced hls Amerlcan
clLlzenshlp, keeplng solely hls hlllpplne clLlzenshlp. (Manuel !apzon v. CCMLLLC, eL al., C.8. no., 180088, !anuary 19, 2009).

O - now sboolJ Jomlclle be ooJetstooJ? xplolo.

Answer: 1he Lerm resldence" ls Lo be undersLood noL ln lLs common accepLaLlon as referrlng Lo dwelllng" or hablLuaLlon", buL
raLher Lo domlclle" or legal resldence, LhaL ls, Lhe place where a parLy acLually or consLrucLlvely has hls permanenL home, where
he, no maLLer where he may be found aL any glven Llme, evenLually lnLends Lo reLurn and remaln (oolmos mooeoJl)." (!apzon vs.
CCMLLLC, supra.).

O - now ls Jomlclle of otlqlo ocpolteJ? xplolo.

Answer: A domlclle of orlgln ls acqulred by every person aL blrLh. lL ls usually Lhe place where Lhe chlld's parenLs reslde and
conLlnues unLll Lhe same ls abandoned by acqulslLlon of new domlclle (domlclle of cholce). ln Coqullla vs. CCMLLLC, 438 hll. 861
(2002), Lhe CourL already acknowledged LhaL for an lndlvldual Lo acqulre Amerlcan clLlzenshlp, he musL esLabllsh resldence ln Lhe
uSA. Slnce 1y hlmself admlLLed LhaL he became a naLurallzed Amerlcan clLlzen, Lhen he musL have necessarlly abandoned Lhe
MunlclpallLy of Ceneral MacarLhur, LasLern Samar, hlllpplnes, as hls domlclle of orlgln, and Lransferred Lo Lhe uSA, as hls domlclle
of cholce. (!apzon vs. CCMLLLC).

O - 5tote tbe effect of 1ys teocpolsltloo of lblllpploe cltlzeosblp oo bls teslJeoce/Jomlclle? xplolo.

Answer: 1y's reacqulslLlon of hls hlllpplne clLlzenshlp under 8epubllc AcL no. 9223 had no auLomaLlc lmpacL or effecL on hls
resldence/domlclle. Pe could sLlll reLaln hls domlclle ln Lhe uSA, and he dld noL necessarlly regaln hls domlclle ln Lhe MunlclpallLy
of Ceneral MacarLhur, LasLern Samar, hlllpplnes. 1y merely had Lhe opLlon Lo agaln esLabllsh hls domlclle ln Lhe MunlclpallLy of
Ceneral MacarLhur, LasLern Samar, hlllpplnes, sald place becomlng hls new domlclle of cholce. 1he lengLh of hls resldence Lhereln
shall be deLermlned from Lhe Llme he made lL hls domlclle of cholce, and lL shall noL reLroacL Lo Lhe Llme of hls blrLh. (!apzon vs.
CCMLLLC).

O - now tbeo coolJ lt be estobllsbeJ tbot 1y loJeeJ estobllsbeJ o oew Jomlclle lo tbe Moolclpollty of Ceoetol Mocottbot, osteto
5omot, lblllpploes?

Answer: lL ls Lhe facL of resldence LhaL ls Lhe declslve facLor ln deLermlnlng wheLher or noL an lndlvldual has saLlsfled Lhe resldency
quallflcaLlon requlremenL.

1y's lnLenL Lo esLabllsh a new domlclle of cholce ln Lhe MunlclpallLy of Ceneral MacarLhur, LasLern Samar, hlllpplnes,
became apparenL when, lmmedlaLely afLer reacqulrlng hls hlllpplne clLlzenshlp on 2 CcLober 2003, he applled for a hlllpplne
passporL lndlcaLlng ln hls appllcaLlon LhaL hls resldence ln Lhe hlllpplnes was aL A. Mablnl SL., 8arangay 6, oblaclon, Ceneral
MacarLhur, LasLern Samar. lor Lhe years 2006 and 2007, 1y volunLarlly submlLLed hlmself Lo Lhe local Lax [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe
MunlclpallLy of Ceneral MacarLhur, LasLern Samar, by paylng communlLy Lax and securlng C1Cs from Lhe sald munlclpallLy sLaLlng
Lhereln hls address as A. Mablnl SL., 8arangay 6, oblaclon, Ceneral MacarLhur, LasLern Samar. 1hereafLer, 1y applled for and was
reglsLered as a voLer on 17 !uly 2006 ln reclncL 0013A, 8arangay 6, oblaclon, Ceneral MacarLhur, LasLern Samar.

ln addlLlon, 1y has also been bodlly presenL ln Lhe MunlclpallLy Ceneral MacarLhur, LasLern Samar, hlllpplnes, slnce hls
arrlval on 4 May 2006, lnarguably, [usL a llLLle over a year prlor Lo Lhe 14 May 2007 local elecLlons. 1he facL LhaL 1y dld noL come
back Lo Lhe MunlclpallLy of Ceneral MacarLhur, LasLern Samar, hlllpplnes, afLer sald Lrlps, ls a furLher manlfesLaLlon of hls oolmos
mooeoJl and oolmos tevetteoJl.

20 | a b r c . p o l l . 0 9 - 1 0 / c r y s


ln apandayan, !r. vs. Commlsslon on LlecLlons, 430 hll. 734 (2002), Lhe CourL provlded a summaLlon of Lhe dlfferenL
prlnclples and concepLs ln [urlsprudence relaLlng Lo Lhe resldency quallflcaLlon for elecLlve local offlclals. erLlnenL porLlons of Lhe
raLlo ln apandayan are reproduced below:

Cur declslons have applled cerLaln LesLs and concepLs ln resolvlng Lhe lssue of wheLher
or noL a candldaLe has complled wlLh Lhe resldency requlremenL for elecLlve poslLlons. 1he
prlnclple of oolmos tevetteoJl has been used Lo deLermlne wheLher a candldaLe has an
lnLenLlon Lo reLurn" Lo Lhe place where he seeks Lo be elecLed. Corollary Lo Lhls ls a
deLermlnaLlon wheLher Lhere has been an abandonmenL" of hls former resldence whlch
slgnlfles an lnLenLlon Lo deparL Lherefrom. ln Caasl vs. CourL of Appeals, Lhls CourL seL aslde Lhe
appealed orders of Lhe CCMLLLC and Lhe CourL of Appeals and annulled Lhe elecLlon of Lhe
respondenL as Munlclpal Mayor of 8ollnao, angaslnan on Lhe ground LhaL respondenL's
lmmlgraLlon Lo Lhe unlLed SLaLes ln 1984 consLlLuLed an abandonmenL of hls domlclle and
resldence ln Lhe hlllpplnes. 8elng a green card holder, whlch was proof LhaL he was a
permanenL resldenL or lmmlgranL of Lhe unlLed SLaLes, and ln Lhe absence of any walver of hls
sLaLus as such before he ran for elecLlon on !anuary 18, 1988, respondenL was held Lo be
dlsquallfled under SecLlon 68 of Lhe Cmnlbus LlecLlon Code of Lhe hlllpplnes (8aLas ambansa
8lg. 881).

ln Co vs. LlecLoral 1rlbunal of Lhe Pouse of 8epresenLaLlves, respondenL !ose Cng, !r.
was proclalmed Lhe duly elecLed represenLaLlve of Lhe 2
nd
ulsLrlcL of norLhern Samar. 1he
Pouse of 8epresenLaLlves LlecLoral 1rlbunal (P8L1) upheld hls elecLlon agalnsL clalms LhaL he
was noL a naLural born llllplno clLlzen and a resldenL of Laoang, norLhern Samar. ln susLalnlng
Lhe rullng of Lhe P8L1, Lhls CourL, clLlng laypon vs. Culrlno, applled Lhe concepL of oolmos
tevetteoJl or lnLenL Lo reLurn", sLaLlng LhaL hls absence from hls resldence ln order Lo pursue
sLudles or pracLlce hls professlon as a cerLlfled publlc accounLanL ln Manlla or hls reglsLraLlon as
a voLer oLher Lhan ln Lhe place where he was elecLed dld noL consLlLuLe loss of resldence. 1he
facL LhaL respondenL made perlodlcal [ourneys Lo hls home provlnce ln Laoag revealed LhaL he
always had oolmos tevetteoJl.

ln Abella vs. CCMLLLC and Larrazabal vs. CCMLLLC, lL was explalned LhaL Lhe
deLermlnaLlon of a person's legal resldence or domlclle largely depends upon Lhe lnLenLlon LhaL
may be lnferred from hls acLs, acLlvlLles, and uLLerances. ln LhaL case, peLlLloner Adellna
Larrazabal, who had obLalned Lhe hlghesL number of voLes ln Lhe local elecLlons of lebruary 1,
1988 and who had Lhus been proclalmed as Lhe duly elecLed governor, was dlsquallfled by Lhe
CCMLLLC for lack of resldence and reglsLraLlon quallflcaLlons, noL belng a resldenL nor a
reglsLered voLer of kananga, LeyLe. 1he CCMLLLC ruled LhaL Lhe aLLempL of peLlLloner
Larrazabal Lo change her resldence one year before Lhe elecLlon by reglsLerlng aL kananga,
LeyLe Lo quallfy her Lo run for Lhe poslLlon of governor of Crmoc ClLy. 1hls CourL afflrmed Lhe
rullng of Lhe CCMLLLC and held LhaL peLlLloner Larrazabal had esLabllshed her resldence ln
Crmoc ClLy, noL ln kananga, LeyLe, from 1973 up Lo Lhe Llme LhaL she ran for Lhe poslLlon of
rovlnclal Covernor of LeyLe on lebruary 1, 1988. 1here was no evldence Lo show LhaL she and
her husband aL Crmoc ClLy. 1he facL LhaL she occaslonally vlslLed kananga, LeyLe Lhrough Lhe
years dld noL slgnlfy an lnLenLlon Lo conLlnue her resldence afLer leavlng LhaL place.

ln 8omualdez vs. 81C, 8ranch 7, 1acloban ClLy, Lhe CourL held LhaL domlclle" and
resldence" are synonymous. 1he Lerm resldence," as used ln Lhe elecLlon law, lmporLs noL
only an lnLenLlon Lo reslde ln a flxed place buL also personal presence ln LhaL place, coupled
wlLh conducL lndlcaLlve of such lnLenLlon. uomlclle" denoLes a flxed permanenL resldence Lo
whlch when absenL for buslness or pleasure, or for llke reasons, one lnLends Lo reLurn. ln LhaL
case, peLlLloner hlllp C. 8omualdez esLabllshed hls resldence durlng Lhe early 1980's ln
8arangay Malbog, 1olosa, LeyLe. lL was held LhaL Lhe sudden deparLure from Lhe counLry of
peLlLloner, because of Lhe LuSA eople's ower 8evoluLlon of 1986, Lo go lnLo self-exlle ln Lhe
unlLed SLaLes unLll favorable condlLlons had been esLabllshed, was noL volunLary so as Lo
consLlLuLe an abandonmenL of resldence. 1he CourL explalned LhaL ln order Lo acqulre a new
domlclle by cholce, Lhere musL concur (1) resldence or bodlly presence ln Lhe new locallLy, (2)
an lnLenLlon Lo remaln Lhere, and (3) an lnLenLlon Lo abandon Lhe old domlclle. 1here musL be
oolmos mooeoJl coupled wlLh oolmos ooo tevetteoJl. 1he purpose Lo remaln ln or aL Lhe
domlclle of cholcec musL be for an lndeflnlLe perlod of Llme, Lhe change of resldence musL be
volunLary, and Lhe resldence aL Lhe place chosen for Lhe new domlclle musL be acLual.

Acqu|s|t|on of |and dur|ng per|od of e|ect|on, not banned.

O - ls tbe ocpolsltloo of o potcel of looJ by o locol qovetomeot oolt fot o pobllc cemetety Jotloq tbe petloJ of tbe electloo boo
cooslJeteJ os pobllc wotks lo vlolotloo of 5ectloo 261(o) of tbe Omolbos lectloo coJe? xplolo.


21 | a b r c . p o l l . 0 9 - 1 0 / c r y s

Answer: no, because land cannoL be consldered as publlc works.

1he locol Covetomeot coJe of 1991 conslders publlc works Lo be Lhe flxed lnfrasLrucLures and faclllLles owned and
operaLed by Lhe governmenL for publlc use and en[oymenL. Accordlng Lo Lhe Code, clLles have Lhe responslblllLy of provldlng
lnfrasLrucLure faclllLles lnLended prlmarlly Lo servlce Lhe needs of Lhelr resldenLs and funded ouL of clLy funds, such as, among
oLhers, roads and brldges, school bulldlngs and oLher faclllLles for publlc elemenLary and secondary schools, and cllnlcs, healLh
cenLers and oLher healLh faclllLles necessary Lo carry ouL healLh servlces.

1he enumeraLlon ln Sec. 1, sopto - lnfrasLrucLure faclllLles, especlally naLlonal hlghways, flood conLrol and waLer
resources developmenL sysLems, and oLher publlc works ln accordance wlLh naLlonal developmenL ob[ecLlves" - means LhaL only
Lhe flxed publlc lnfrasLrucLures for use of Lhe publlc are regarded as publlc works. 1hls consLrucLlon conforms Lo Lhe rule of
ejosJem qeoetls. (Cuzman v. CCMLLLC, eL al., C.8. no. 182380, AugusL 28, 2009).

kes|dence and dom|c||e once aga|n |nterpreted.

O - Atseolo Noble wos boto lo loposoo, coqoyoo Je Oto clty. ne clolmeJ to bove cboseo klooqoltoo, Mlsomls Otleotol os bls oew
Jomlclle cooteoJloq tbot be bos voteJ tbete tbtee (J) tlmes, be ls mottleJ to 8etooJltb Co, o teslJeot tbetelo, tbot be polJ bls
wotet bllls tbetelo ooJ ptoveJ tbot be ls oo owoet of o ptopetty tbete. ne sooqbt to be electeJ fot moyot lo klooqoltoo. ls be
poollfleJ? wby?

Answer: no. Whlle voLlng glves rlse Lo a sLrong presumpLlon of resldence, lL ls noL concluslve evldence Lhereof. (uomlno v.
CCMLLLC, 369 hll. 798 (1999).

ln letez v. commlssloo oo lectloos, 373 SC8A 1106 (1999) lL was held LhaL a person's reglsLraLlon as voLer ln one dlsLrlcL
ls noL proof LhaL he ls noL domlclled ln anoLher dlsLrlcL. 1he reglsLraLlon of a voLer ln a place oLher Lhan hls resldence of orlgln ls
noL sufflclenL Lo conslder hlm Lo have abandoned or losL hls resldence. (laypon v. Culrlno, 96 hll. 294 (1934).

1o esLabllsh a new domlclle of cholce, personal presence ln Lhe place musL be coupled wlLh conducL lndlcaLlve of LhaL
lnLenLlon. lL requlres noL only such bodlly presence ln LhaL place buL also a declared and probable lnLenL Lo make lL one's flxed and
permanenL place of abode. (undaodaya v. CCMLLLC, eL al., C.8. no. 179313, SepLember 17, 2009).

noLe:
ln Lhls case, Lhe alleged change of domlclle was effecLed solely for Lhe purpose of quallfylng as a candldaLe ln Lhe 2007
elecLlons. 1hls we cannoL allow. ln 1otoyoo, 5t. v. commlssloo oo lectloos,

C.8. no. 137329, AugusL 9, 2000, 337 SC8A 374, lL was
held LhaL Lhe one-year resldency requlremenL ls almed aL excludlng ouLslders from Laklng advanLage of favorable clrcumsLances
exlsLlng ln LhaL communlLy for elecLoral galn." LsLabllshlng resldence ln a communlLy merely Lo meeL an elecLlon law requlremenL
defeaLs Lhe purpose of represenLaLlon: Lo elecL Lhrough Lhe assenL of voLers Lhose mosL cognlzanL and senslLlve Lo Lhe needs of Lhe
communlLy. (Aqulno v. CCMLLLC, 248 SC8A 400). noble dlsquallfled from runnlng as munlclpal mayor of klnogulLan, Mlsamls
CrlenLal.

App||cat|on of the pr|nc|p|e of idem sonoms.

ln cotJlo v. Moofotte, et ol., C.8. no. 174620, March 4, 2009, Morales, !, Lhe parLles were candldaLes for unong
8arangay of 8arangay 16, Legaspl ClLy ln Lhe 2002 8arangay LlecLlons. eLlLloner was proclalmed Lhe wlnner, hence, an elecLoral
proLesL was flled by respondenL alleglng LhaL Lhe 8oard of LlecLlon 1eller falled Lo credlL aL leasL 10 voLes for hlm. 1he M1CC
rendered a [udgmenL ln favor of respondenL seLLlng aslde Lhe earller proclamaLlon. 1he CCMLLLC afflrmed Lhe rullng on appeal
hence, a peLlLlon for cerLlorarl was flled wlLh Lhe SC alleglng LhaL Lhe CCMLLLC commlLLed grave abuse of dlscreLlon ln applylng
Lhe nelghborhood rule on Lhe basls alone LhaL hls name was wrlLLen on Lhe flrsL space or llne lnLended for Lhe poslLlon of kagawad
and Lhe prlnclple of lJem soooms when lL counLed ln favor of prlvaLe respondenL Lhe voLe ManLeLe" appearlng ln Lhe quesLloned
balloL wrlLLen noL on Lhe llne or space for punong barangay buL kagawad. ls Lhe peLlLlon proper? Why?

Answer: no, lL ls berefL of merlL. 1he ob[ecL of Lhe appreclaLlon of balloLs ls Lo ascerLaln and carry lnLo effecL Lhe lnLenLlon of Lhe
voLer, lf lL can be deLermlned wlLh reasonable cerLalnLy. (!uan v. CCMLLLC, C.8. no. 166639, Aprll 24, 2007, 322 SC8A 192). When
placed ln lssue, Lhe appreclaLlon of conLesLed balloLs and elecLlon documenLs, whlch lnvolves a quesLlon of facL, ls besL lefL Lo Lhe
deLermlnaLlon of Lhe CCMLLLC. (!uan v. CCMLLLC).
1he CCMLLLC, ln credlLlng Lo respondenL Lhe voLe for ManLeLe" ln LxhlblL A," followlng Lhe lJem soooos rule, dld noL
commlL grave abuse dlscreLlon.

eLlLloner conLended LhaL ManLeLe" could refer Lo edro Andes, a candldaLe for koqowoJ who, accordlng Lo hlm, was
fondly called eLe" or Mang eLe" ln Lhe botooqoy. 1here ls no proof LhaL Monq ete" ls Andes' reglsLered nlckname.

remature campa|gn|ng, |ts nature.

O - kosolloJo leoeto flleJ bet cettlflcote of cooJlJocy bot sbe wos cbotqeJ wltb ptemotote compolqoloq sloce tbete wos o
mototcoJe tbot lmmeJlotely took ploce lo tbe locollty oftet tbe fllloq of bet cettlflcote of cooJlJocy. No speecbes wete bowevet
moJe, losteoJ, tbete wos ooly motcbloq moslc lo tbe bockqtoooJ ooJ o qtooJstooJloq fot tbe potpose of tolsloq tbe booJs of tbe
cooJlJotes lo tbe mototcoJe. ls sbe JlspoollfleJ to too fot moyot cooslJetloq tbot sbe cooJocteJ ptemotote compolqoloq? xplolo.

22 | a b r c . p o l l . 0 9 - 1 0 / c r y s


Answer: no, because aL Lhe Llme of Lhe moLorcade, she was noL yeL a candldaLe. 1he mere flllng of her cerLlflcaLe of candldacy dld
noL make her a candldaLe because she can only be consldered a candldaLe aL Lhe sLarL of Lhe campalgn perlod for whlch she flled
her cerLlflcaLe of candldacy. (Sec. 13(3), 8A 9369). 1he unlawful acLs or omlsslon appllcable Lo a candldaLe shall Lake effecL only
upon Lhe sLarL of Lhe aforesald campalgn perlod. (Sec. 13). Pence, Lhe elecLlon offenses may be commlLLed by a candldaLe only
upon Lhe sLarL of Lhe campalgn perlod. 8efore Lhe sLarL of Lhe campalgn perlod, such elecLlon offenses cannoL be commlLLed.
(8osallnda enera v. CCMLLLC, eL al., C.8. no. 181613, november 23, 2009 clLlng LanoL v. CCMLLLC, C.8. no. 164838, november
16, 2006, 307 SC8A 114).

noLe:
kat|ona|e for the pr|nc|p|e.

lL ls a baslc prlnclple of law LhaL any acL ls lawful unless expressly declared unlawful by law. 1hls ls speclally Lrue Lo
expresslon or speech, whlch Congress cannoL ouLlaw excepL on very narrow grounds lnvolvlng clear, presenL and lmmlnenL
danger Lo Lhe SLaLe. 1he mere facL LhaL Lhe law does noL declare an acL unlawful lpso focto means LhaL Lhe acL ls lawful. 1hus,
Lhere ls no need for Congress Lo declare ln SecLlon 13 of 8A 8436, as amended by 8A 9369, LhaL pollLlcal parLlsan acLlvlLles before
Lhe sLarL of Lhe campalgn perlod are lawful. lL ls sufflclenL for Congress Lo sLaLe LhaL any unlawful acL or omlsslon appllcable Lo a
candldaLe shall Lake effecL only upon Lhe sLarL of Lhe campalgn perlod." 1he only lnescapable and loglcal resulL ls LhaL Lhe same
acLs, lf done before Lhe sLarL of Lhe campalgn perlod, are lawful.

ln layman's language, Lhls means LhaL a candldaLe ls llable for an elecLlon offense only for acLs done durlng Lhe campalgn
perlod, noL before. 1he law ls clear as dayllghL - any elecLlon offense LhaL may be commlLLed by a candldaLe under any elecLlon
law cannoL be commlLLed before Lhe sLarL of Lhe campalgn perlod.

Stat|st|ca| |mprobab|||ty.

O - wbeo ls tbe Jocttloe of stotlstlcol lmptoboblllty oppllcoble? xplolo.

Answer: 1he docLrlne of sLaLlsLlcal lmprobablllLy ls applled only where Lhe unlque unlformlLy of Lally of all Lhe voLes casL ln favor of
all Lhe candldaLes belonglng Lo one parLy ooJ Lhe sysLemaLlc blanklng of all Lhe candldaLes of all Lhe opposlng parLles appear ln Lhe
elecLlon reLurn. (Lagumbay v. CCMLLLC, 16 SC8A 173 (1966), SlnsuaL v. endaLun, C.8. no. L-31301, !une 30, 1970, 33 SC8A 630).
1he docLrlne has no appllcaLlon where Lhere ls oeltbet unlformlLy of Lallles oot sysLemaLlc blanklng of Lhe candldaLes of one parLy.
(uoruelo v. CCMLLLC, 133 SC8A 376 (1984). 1hus, Lhe bare facL LhaL a candldaLe for publlc offlce recelved oo voLes ln one or Lwo
preclncLs, sLandlng alone and wlLhouL more, cannoL adequaLely supporL a flndlng LhaL Lhe sub[ecL elecLlon reLurns are sLaLlsLlcally
lmprobable. verlly, a zeto voLe for a parLlcular candldaLe ln Lhe elecLlon reLurns ls buL one sLrand ln Lhe web of clrcumsLanLlal
evldence LhaL Lhe elecLoral reLurns were prepared under duress, force and lnLlmldaLlon. (velayo v. CCMLLLC, C.8. no. 133613,
March 9, 2000, 327 SC8A 713, Suhurl v. CCMLLLC, eL al., C.8. no. 181869, CcLober 2, 2009).

O - now ls tbe Jocttloe of stotlstlcol lmptoboblllty vleweJ? xplolo.

Answer: 1he docLrlne of sLaLlsLlcal lmprobablllLy musL be resLrlcLlvely vlewed, wlLh Lhe uLmosL care belng Laken lesL ln penallzlng
fraudulenL and corrupL pracLlces - whlch ls Lruly called for - lnnocenL voLers become dlsenfranchlsed, a resulL LhaL hardly
commends lLself. (Suhurl v. CCMLLLC, eL al., C.8. no. 181869, CcLober 2, 2009).

O - wbeo os tbe Jocttloe fltst ptoooooceJ? xplolo.

Answer: 1he docLrlne of sLaLlsLlcal lmprobablllLy was flrsL pronounced ln loqomboy v. commlssloo oo lectloos, C.8. no. L-23444,
!anuary 31, 1966, 16 SC8A 173 ln whlch Lhe CourL upheld Lhe power and duLy of Lhe CCMLLLC Lo re[ecL Lhe reLurns of abouL 30
preclncLs affecLlng Lhe elecLlons of SenaLors, because Lhelr resulLs were conLrary Lo all sLaLlsLlcal probablllLles," Lhus:

lL appearlng Lhereln LhaL - conLrary Lo all sLaLlsLlcal probablllLles - ln Lhe flrsL seL, ln each preclncL Lhe
number of reglsLered voLers equalled Lhe number of balloLs and Lhe number of voLes reporLedly casL and Lallled
for each and every candldaLe of Lhe Llberal arLy, Lhe parLy ln power, whereas, all Lhe candldaLes of Lhe
naclonallsLa arLy goL exacLly zero, and ln Lhe second seL, - agaln conLrary Lo all sLaLlsLlcal probablllLles - all
Lhe reporLed voLes were for candldaLes of Lhe Llberal arLy, all of whom were credlLed wlLh exacLly Lhe same
number of voLes ln each preclncL, ranglng from 240 ln one preclncL Lo 630 ln anoLher preclncL, whereas, all Lhe
candldaLes of Lhe naclonallsLa arLy were glven exacLly zero ln all sald preclncLs.

loqomboy expounded on Lhe docLrlne of sLaLlsLlcal lmprobablllLy and Lhe docLrlne's effecL on Lhe power of Lhe CCMLLLC
Lo re[ecL Lhe resulLs reflecLed ln Lhe elecLlon reLurns when such reLurns showed ptlmo focle LhaL Lhey dld noL reflecL Lhe Lrue and
valld reporLs of regular voLlng, Lhus:

1he CourL oplned LhaL Lhe elecLlon resulL ln sald preclncLs as reporLed was uLLerly lmprobable and
clearly lncredlble. lor lL ls noL llkely, ln Lhe ordlnary course of Lhlngs, LhaL all Lhe elecLors of one preclncL would,
as one man, voLe for all Lhe elghL candldaLes of Lhe Llberal arLy, wlLhouL glvlng a slngle voLe Lo one of Lhe elghL
candldaLes of Lhe naclonallsLa arLy. Such exLraordlnary colncldence was qulLe lmposslble Lo belleve, knowlng
LhaL Lhe naclonallsLa arLy had and has a naLlonwlde organlzaLlon, wlLh branches ln every provlnce, and was, ln

23 | a b r c . p o l l . 0 9 - 1 0 / c r y s

prevlous years, Lhe parLy ln power ln Lhese lslands. (Suhurl v. CCMLLLC, eL al., C.8. no. 181869, CcLober 2,
2009).

CCMLLLC

O - 5ectloo 4J of kA 9J69 wos poestlooeJ os oocoostltotloool sloce lt ls vlolotlve of 5ectloo 2(6), Attlcle l\-c of tbe coostltotloo
wblcb vests lo tbe cOMlc tbe excloslve powet to lovestlqote ooJ ptosecote coses of vlolotloo of tbe electloo lows. lt wos
cooteoJeJ tbot sloce lt qlves otbet ptosecotloq otms of tbe qovetomeot tbe coocotteot powet wltb tbe cOMlc to lovestlqote ooJ
ptosecote electloo coses, lt ls oocoostltotloool. ls tbe cooteotloo cottect? wby?

Answer: no. SecLlon 2(6), ArLlcle lx-C of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon vesLs ln Lhe CCMLLLC Lhe power Lo lnvesLlgaLe and, where approprlaLe,
prosecuLe cases of vlolaLlons of elecLlon laws, lncludlng acLs or omlsslons consLlLuLlng elecLlon frauds, offenses, and malpracLlces."
1he phrase where approprlaLe" leaves Lo Lhe leglslaLure Lhe power Lo deLermlne Lhe klnd of elecLlon offenses LhaL Lhe CCMLLLC
shall prosecuLe excluslvely or concurrenLly wlLh oLher prosecuLlng arms of Lhe governmenL.

1he granL of Lhe excluslve power" Lo lnvesLlgaLe and prosecuLe elecLlon offenses Lo Lhe CCMLLLC was noL by vlrLue of
Lhe ConsLlLuLlon buL by 8 881, a leglslaLlve enacLmenL. lf Lhe lnLenLlon of Lhe framers of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon were Lo glve Lhe
CCMLLLC Lhe excluslve power" Lo lnvesLlgaLe and prosecuLe elecLlon offenses, Lhe framers would have expressly so sLaLed ln Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon. 1hey dld noL. (8arangay AssoclaLlon for naLlonal AdvancemenL and 1ransparency (8AnA1) v. CCMLLLC, C.8. no.
177308, AugusL 7, 2009).

LLLC1ICN

roc|a|med cand|date was the |oser, remedy |s to
annu| proc|amat|on.

O - kecotJs sbow tbot petltlooet wos JecloteJ tbe 12
tb
wlooloq cooJlJote boseJ oo 5Ovls cootololoq motbemotlcol ooJ cletlcol
ettots. 1be totol oombet of votes lo tbe 5Ovls of tbe lJeotlfleJ pteclocts ote motkeJly Jlffeteot ftom tbe votes toboloteJ lo tbelt
tespectlve ks, l.e., petltlooet wos qlveo oJJltloool votes, wblle ptlvote tespooJeots votes wete teJoceJ, wblcb olteteJ tbe
ootcome of tbe electloo. letltlooet wos JecloteJ tbe lost wlooloq cooJlJote fot tbe posltloo of 5ooqqoolooq looqlooqsoJ of
1oqoeqotoo clty, losteoJ of ptlvote tespooJeot. A petltloo fot cottectloo of moolfest ettot ooJ oooolmeot of tbe ptoclomotloo wos
flleJ. lt wos cooteoJeJ tbot ptotest ls tbe opptoptlote temeJy. ls tbe cooteotloo cottect? wby?

Answer: As a rule, Lhe remedy of Lhe loslng parLy ls an elecLlon proLesL afLer hls opponenL has already been proclalmed as wlnnlng
candldaLe, buL such recourse ls on Lhe assumpLlon, however, LhaL Lhere has been a valld proclamaLlon. Where a proclamaLlon ls
null and vold, Lhe proclamaLlon ls no proclamaLlon aL all and Lhe proclalmed candldaLe's assumpLlon of offlce cannoL deprlve Lhe
CCMLLLC of Lhe power Lo declare such nulllLy and annul Lhe proclamaLlon. (1orres v. CCMLLLC, 337 hll. 270 (1997), uuremdes v.
CCMLLLC, C.8. nos. 86362-63, CcLober 27, 1989, 178 SC8A 746 and Aguam v. CCMLLLC, 132 hll. 333 (1968).

ln Lhls case, lL ls very clear LhaL Lhe proclalmed candldaLe was Lhe loser, hence, Lhe peLlLlon Lo amend and annul was
proper. (1agulam v. CCMLLLC, eL al., C.8. no. 184801, !uly 30, 2009).

LMINLN1 DCMAIN

Nature of determ|nat|on of [ust compensat|on.

ln l8l v. I.l. Iocsoo & 5oos, C.8. no. 180803, CcLober 23, 2009, Morales, !, Lhe SC once agaln had Lhe occaslon Lo say LhaL
Lhe deLermlnaLlon of [usL compensaLlon ln emlnenL domaln cases ls a [udlclal funcLlon.

ln Lhe recenL case of looJ 8ook of tbe lblllpploes v. cblco, C.8. no. 168343, March 13, 2009, Lhe CourL declared ln no
uncerLaln Lerms LhaL 8.A. no. 6637 ls Lhe relevanL law for deLermlnlng [usL compensaLlon afLer noLlng several declded cases where
Lhe CourL found lL more equlLable Lo deLermlne [usL compensaLlon based on Lhe value of Lhe properLy ot tbe tlme of poymeot. 1hls
was a clear deparLure from Lhe CourL's earller sLance ln Cobotlo v. looJ 8ook of tbe lblllpploes, C.8. no. 148223, november 24,
2004, 444 SC8A 176, where lL declared LhaL Lhe reckonlng perlod for Lhe deLermlnaLlon of [usL compensaLlon ls Lhe Llme when Lhe
land was Laken applylng .u. no. 27 and L.C. no. 228.


.u. no. 27/L.C. no. 228 vls o vls 8.A. no. 6637 was applled Lo cases lnvolvlng lands placed under Lhe coverage of .u. no.
27/L.C. no. 228 where paymenL of [usL compensaLlon had noL been compleLed. When ln Lhe lotetlm 8.A. no. 6637 was passed
before Lhe full paymenL of [usL compensaLlon, as ln Lhe case aL bar, Lhe provlslons of 8.A. no. 6637 on [usL compensaLlon conLrol.

ulscusslng Lhe reLroacLlve appllcaLlon of Lhe provlslons of 8.A. no. 6637 for lands yeL Lo be pald by Lhe governmenL
alLhough exproprlaLed under .u. no. 27, Lhe CourL ln looJ 8ook of tbe lblllpploes v. stoolsloo, 327 SC8A 181 (2007) raLloclnaLed:

under Lhe facLual clrcumsLances of Lhls case, Lhe agrarlan reform process ls sLlll lncompleLe as Lhe [usL
compensaLlon Lo be pald prlvaLe respondenLs has yeL Lo be seLLled. Conslderlng Lhe passage of 8epubllc AcL no.
6637 (8A 6637) before Lhe compleLlon of Lhls process, Lhe [usL compensaLlon should be deLermlned and Lhe

24 | a b r c . p o l l . 0 9 - 1 0 / c r y s

process concluded under Lhe sald law. lndeed, kA 6657 ls tbe oppllcoble low, wltb lu 27 ooJ O 228 bovloq ooly
soppletoty effect, coofotmobly wltb oot tolloq lo lotls v. Alfecbe."

lL would cerLalnly be lnequlLable Lo deLermlne [usL compensaLlon based on Lhe guldellne provlded by
u 27 and LC 228 conslderlng Lhe uA8's fallure Lo deLermlne Lhe [usL compensaLlon for a conslderable lengLh of
Llme. 1bot just compensotion shou/d be determined in occordonce with k4 57, ooJ oot lu 27 ot O 228, ls
especlolly lmpetotlve cooslJetloq tbot jost compeosotloo sboolJ be tbe foll ooJ folt epolvoleot of tbe ptopetty
tokeo ftom lts owoet by tbe exptoptlotot, tbe epolvoleot beloq teol, sobstootlol, foll ooJ omple."

ketroact|v|ty of kA 66S7, enacted to promote soc|a|
[ust|ce.

O - lf o ptopetty wos otlqloolly coveteJ by lu27 bot tbe compeosotloo bos oot yet beeo polJ wbeo kA 6657 wos eoocteJ, wbot ls
tbe bosls of jost compeosotloo? xplolo.

Answer: 1he basls would be 8A 6637. under Lhe law, ln deLermlnlng [usL compensaLlon, Lhe cosL of acqulslLlon of Lhe land, Lhe
currenL value of Lhe llke properLles, lLs naLure, acLual use and lncome, Lhe sworn valuaLlon by Lhe owner, Lhe Lax declaraLlons, and
Lhe assessmenLs made by governmenL assessors shall be consldered. 1he soclal and economlc beneflLs conLrlbuLed by Lhe farmers
and Lhe farmworkers and by Lhe CovernmenL Lo Lhe properLy as well as Lhe non-paymenL of Laxes or loans secured from any
governmenL flnanclng lnsLlLuLlon on Lhe sald land shall be consldered as addlLlonal facLors Lo deLermlne lLs valuaLlon.

1he reason ls LhaL, Lhe Comprehenslve Agrarlan 8eform Law (CA8L) or 8.A. no. 6637 was enacLed Lo promoLe speclal
[usLlce Lo Lhe landless farmers and provlde a more equlLable dlsLrlbuLlon and ownershlp of land wlLh due regard Lo Lhe rlghLs of
landowners Lo [usL compensaLlon and Lo Lhe ecologlcal needs of Lhe naLlon." (L8 v. Pelrs of Angee 1. uomlngo, C.8. no. 168333,
lebruary 4, 2008, 343 SC8A 627, L8 v. Pelrs of PonoraLo de Leon, C.8. no. 164023, May 8, 2009, uA8 v. 1ongson, C.8. no.
171674, AugusL 4, 2009).

Lasement of r|ght of way, em|nent doma|n.

Cnce agaln, Lhe SC ln Nlc v. vlllomot, C.8. no. 160080, !une 19, 2009 had Lhe occaslon Lo say LhaL easemenL of rlghL of
way falls wlLhln Lhe purvlew of Lhe power of emlnenL domaln. ln lnsLalllng Lhe 230 kv 1allsay-ComposLela Lransmlsslon llnes whlch
Lraversed respondenL's lands, a permanenL llmlLaLlon ls lmposed by peLlLloner agalnsL Lhe use of Lhe lands for an lndeflnlLe perlod.
1hls deprlved respondenL of Lhe normal use of Lhe lands. ln facL, noL only are Lhe affecLed areas of Lhe lands Lraversed by
peLlLloner's Lransmlsslon llnes buL a porLlon ls used as Lhe slLe of lLs Lransmlsslon Lower. 8ecause of Lhe danger Lo llfe and llmbs
LhaL may be caused beneaLh Lhe hlgh-Lenslon llve wlres, Lhe landowner wlll noL be able Lo use Lhe lands for farmlng or any
agrlculLural purposes. Pence, Lhe owner has Lhe rlghL Lo be pald Lhe full value of hls properLy.

Along Lhe same veln, ln kep. v. 5ps. kopetto llboooo, et ol., C.8. no. 166333, !uly 30, 2009, lL was sald LhaL rellance on
SecLlon 3-A of 8.A. 6393, as amended, ls mlsplaced. Whlle SecLlon 3-A of 8.A. 6393 lndeed sLaLes LhaL only 10 of Lhe markeL value
of Lhe properLy ls due Lo Lhe owner of Lhe properLy sub[ecL Lo an easemenL of rlghL-of-way, sald rule ls noL blndlng on Lhe CourL. lL
has been relLeraLed LhaL Lhe deLermlnaLlon of [usL compensaLlon" ln emlnenL domaln cases ls a [udlclal funcLlon. Any valuaLlon for
[usL compensaLlon lald down ln Lhe sLaLuLes may serve only as a guldlng prlnclple or one of Lhe facLors ln deLermlnlng [usL
compensaLlon, buL lL may noL subsLlLuLe Lhe courL's own [udgmenL as Lo whaL amounL should be awarded and how Lo arrlve aL such
amounL.

1he owners are enLlLled Lo Lhe paymenL of legal lnLeresL on Lhe compensaLlon for Lhe sub[ecL lands from Lhe Llme of Lhe
Laklng of Lhelr possesslon up Lo Lhe Llme LhaL full paymenL ls made by peLlLloner. ln accordance wlLh [urlsprudence, Lhe legal
lnLeresL allowed ln paymenL of [usL compensaLlon for lands exproprlaLed for publlc use ls slx percenL (6) per annum.

kequ|rements before there can be |mmed|ate entry |nto property
be|ng expropr|ated.

O - kA No. 8874 otbetwlse koowo os Ao Act to locllltote 5lte ot locotloo fot Notloool Covetomeot loftosttoctote ltoject ooJ fot
Otbet lotposes ptovlJes fot qolJelloes fot exptoptlotloo ptoceeJloqs. 1o ottolo tbe objectlve of tbe qovetomeot to focllltote
loftosttoctote ptojects, wbot ote tbe tepoltemeots fot ootbotlzloq lmmeJlote eotty lo exptoptlotloo ptoceeJloqs lovolvloq teol
ptopetty?
Answer: 1he requlremenLs for auLhorlzlng lmmedlaLe enLry ln exproprlaLlon proceedlngs lnvolvlng real properLy are: (1) Lhe flllng
of a complalnL for exproprlaLlon sufflclenL ln form and subsLance, (2) due noLlce Lo Lhe defendanL, (3) paymenL of an amounL
equlvalenL Lo 100 of Lhe value of Lhe properLy based on Lhe currenL relevanL zonal valuaLlon of Lhe 8l8 lncludlng paymenL of Lhe
value of Lhe lmprovemenLs and/or sLrucLures lf any, or lf no such valuaLlon ls avallable and ln cases of uLmosL urgency, Lhe
paymenL of Lhe proffered value of Lhe properLy Lo be selzed, and (4) presenLaLlon Lo Lhe courL of a cerLlflcaLe of avallablllLy of
funds from Lhe proper offlclals.

upon compllance wlLh Lhe requlremenLs, a complalnanL ln an exproprlaLlon case ls enLlLled Lo a wrlL of possesslon as a
maLLer of rlghL, and lL becomes Lhe mlnlsLerlal duLy of Lhe Lrlal courL Lo forLhwlLh lssue Lhe wrlL of possesslon. no hearlng ls
requlred, and Lhe courL exerclses nelLher lLs dlscreLlon nor lLs [udgmenL ln deLermlnlng Lhe amounL of Lhe provlslonal value of Lhe
properLles Lo be exproprlaLed, as Lhe leglslaLure has flxed Lhe amounL under SecLlon 4 of 8epubllc AcL no. 8974. (8ep. v. lar LasL

2S | a b r c . p o l l . 0 9 - 1 0 / c r y s

LnL. lnc., eL al., C.8. no. 176487, AugusL 23, 2009 clLlng CaplLol SLeel Corp. v. PlvluLC lndusLrlal AuLhorlLy, C.8. no. 169433,
uecember 6, 2006, 310 SC8A 390).

LCCAL GCVLkNMLN1S

LGU has the power to rec|ass|fy |ands.

O - Ate tbe cootts tbe ptopet veooe lo wblcb to tesolve ooy Jesplte lovolvloq tbe closslflcotloo of looJs? xplolo.

Answer: no. lL ls well-seLLled LhaL a local governmenL has Lhe power Lo reclasslfy and converL lands Lhrough local ordlnance,
especlally lf sald ordlnance ls approved by Lhe PLu88. (SLa. 8osa 8ealLy uevelopmenL CorporaLlon v. AmanLe, C.8. nos. 112326
and 118838, 433 SC8A 432, 439). ln losooq 8oyobos lotmets Assoclotloo, loc. v. coott Appeols, 473 hll. 64 (2004) Lhe local
governmenL unlLs have Lhe power Lo adopL zonlng ordlnances. ulscreLlon ls vesLed ln Lhe approprlaLe governmenL agencles Lo
deLermlne Lhe sulLablllLy of a land for resldenLlal, commerclal, lndusLrlal or oLher purposes. lL ls also a seLLled rule LhaL an
ordlnance en[oys Lhe presumpLlon of valldlLy. Pavlng Lhe power Lo classlfy lands, Lhe local governmenL unlL may conslder facLors
LhaL are [usL, reasonable and legal, for lL ls wlLhln Lhe local governmenL unlL's power Lo deLermlne Lhese. Powever, lf Lhey abuse
Lhelr auLhorlLy ln Lhe performance of Lhls duLy, Lhe courLs, lf prompLed, can sLep ln. (8ep v. lar LasL LnL. lnc., eL al., C.8. no.
176487, AugusL 23, 2009).

O - wbot ote tbe Jooble potposes of tbe tepoltemeot of poymeot of 100X of tbe voloe of tbe ptopetty sooqbt to be tokeo ooJet kA
8974? xplolo.

Answer: As Lhe prellmlnary or provlslonal deLermlnaLlon of Lhe value of Lhe properLy equlvalenL Lo 100 of Lhe value of Lhe
properLy based on Lhe currenL relevanL zonal valuaLlon of Lhe 8l8, sald amounL serves a double purpose of pre-paymenL lf Lhe
properLy ls fully exproprlaLed, and of lndemnlLy for damages lf Lhe proceedlngs are dlsmlssed. Sald provlslonal value musL be pald
Lo Lhe owner of Lhe land before a wrlL of possesslon may be lssued. 1he lssuance of a cerLlflcaLe of avallablllLy of funds wlll noL
sufflce for Lhe purpose of lssuance of a wrlL of possesslon. (8ep v. lar LasL LnL. lnc., eL al., C.8. no. 176487, AugusL 23, 2009).

LLLC1ICN ] LGU

3-term ||m|t.

O - Motloo Motoles wos electeJ Moyot of Mobolocot, lompooqo lo 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004 ooJ 2007 locol electloos. ne wos,
bowevet JlspoollfleJ lo tbe 2004 electloos becoose of tbe J-tetm llmlt. wblle bls ptoclomotloo lo tbe 1998-2001 electloo wos
JecloteJ volJ, lt wos Jooe oftet setvloq tbe tetm ot oo Ioly 4, 2001. Oo Moy 7, 2007, tbe 5c ptomolqoteJ o Jeclsloo Jlspoollfyloq
blm. ne vocoteJ tbe posltloo, tbe oext Joy, tbe vlce-Moyot ossomeJ offlce ftom Moy 17, 2007 to Iooe J0, 2007. lt wos cooteoJeJ
tbot be wos oot poollfleJ to too lo tbe 2007 locol electloos, otbetwlse, be woolJ be setvloq o 5
tb
tetm. ls tbe cooteotloo cottect?
wby?

Answer: no. lL ls Lrue LhaL he occupled Lhe poslLlon of mayor of Lhe followlng perlods: 1993-1998, 1998-2001, 2001-2004, 2004-
2007 buL because of hls dlsquallflcaLlon he was noL duly elecLed mayor for Lhe 2004-2007 Lerm. nelLher dld Morales hold Lhe
poslLlon of mayor of MabalacaL for Lhe full Lerm. Morales cannoL be deemed Lo have served Lhe full Lerm of 2004-2007 because
he was ordered Lo vacaLe hls posL before Lhe explraLlon of Lhe Lerm. Morales' occupancy of Lhe poslLlon of mayor of MabalacaL
from 1 !uly 2004 Lo 16 May 2007 cannoL be counLed as a Lerm for purposes of compuLlng Lhe Lhree-Lerm llmlL. lndeed, Lhe perlod
from 17 May 2007 Lo 30 !une 2007 served as a gap for purposes of Lhe Lhree-Lerm llmlL rule. 1hus, Lhe presenL 1 !uly 2007 Lo 30
!une 2010 Lerm ls effecLlvely Morales' flrsL Lerm for purposes of Lhe Lhree-Lerm llmlL rule. (ulzon v. CCMLLLC, eL al., C.8. no.
182088, !anuary 30, 2009).

O - lt wos olleqeJ tbot Motoles wos oble to setve bls foottb tetm os moyot tbtooqb leoqtby lltlqotloos. x x x lo otbet wotJs, be
wos vlolotloq tbe tole oo tbtee-tetm llmlt wltb lmpoolty by tbe sbeet leoqtb of lltlqotloo ooJ ptoflt ftom lt eveo mote by tolsloq tbe
tecbolcolltles otlsloq tbeteftom. ls tbe cooteotloo cottect? wby?

Answer: no. 1he respondenLs harp on Lhe delay ln resolvlng Lhe elecLlon proLesL beLween peLlLloner and hls Lhen opponenL Alvez
whlch Look roughly abouL Lhree years and resulLanLly exLended Lhe peLlLloner's lncumbency ln an offlce Lo whlch he was noL
lawfully elecLed. We noLe LhaL such delay cannoL be lmpuLed Lo Lhe peLlLloner. 1here ls no speclflc allegaLlon nor proof LhaL Lhe
delay was due Lo any pollLlcal maneuverlng on hls parL Lo prolong hls sLay ln offlce. Moreover, proLesLanL Alvez, was noL wlLhouL
legal recourse Lo move for Lhe early resoluLlon of Lhe elecLlon proLesL whlle lL was pendlng before Lhe reglonal Lrlal courL or Lo flle
a moLlon for Lhe execuLlon of Lhe reglonal Lrlal courL's declslon declarlng Lhe poslLlon of mayor vacanL and orderlng Lhe vlce-mayor
Lo assume offlce whlle Lhe appeal was pendlng wlLh Lhe CCMLLLC. Such delay whlch ls noL here shown Lo have been lnLenLlonally
soughL by Lhe peLlLloner Lo prolong hls sLay ln offlce cannoL serve as basls Lo bar hls rlghL Lo be elecLed and Lo serve hls chosen
local governmenL posL ln Lhe succeedlng mayoral elecLlon. (ulzon v. CCMLLLC, eL al., C.8. no. 182088, !anuary 30, 2009).

O - wbot ls tbe effect of tbe Jlspoollflcotloo of Motoles lo tbe 2004 electloos? xplolo.

Answer: Pe cannoL be consldered a candldaLe aL all. 1he voLes casL for hlm were consldered as sLray voLes.

O - wbot ote tbe tests lo Jetetmloloq wbetbet o cooJlJote ls JlspoollfleJ becoose of tbe J-tetm llmlt? xplolo.

26 | a b r c . p o l l . 0 9 - 1 0 / c r y s


Answer: lor purposes of deLermlnlng Lhe resulLlng dlsquallflcaLlon broughL abouL by Lhe Lhree-Lerm llmlL, lL ls noL enough LhaL an
lndlvldual has served Lhree consecuLlve Lerms ln an elecLlve local offlce, he musL also have been elecLed Lo Lhe same poslLlon for
Lhe same number of Llmes. (8or[a, !r. v. CCMLLLC, 336 hll. 467 (1998). 1here should be a concurrence of Lwo condlLlons for Lhe
appllcaLlon of Lhe dlsquallflcaLlon: (1) LhaL Lhe offlclal concerned has been elecLed for Lhree consecuLlve Lerms ln Lhe same local
governmenL posL and (2) LhaL he has fully served Lhree consecuLlve Lerms. (ulzon v. CCMLLLC, eL al., C.8. no. 182088, !anuary 30,
2009 clLlng Lonzanlda v. CCMLLLC, 370 hll. 623 (1999)).

O - ne wos JlspoollfleJ lo tbe 2004-2007 tetm. 5tote tbe effect of socb Jlspoollflcotloo wbete be wos ooseoteJ. xplolo.

Answer: lL can be consldered as lnvolunLary severance from offlce.
lnvolunLary severance from offlce for any lengLh of Llme shorL of Lhe full Lerm provlded by law amounLs Lo an lnLerrupLlon
of conLlnulLy of servlce. 1he declslon ln Lhe klveto case unseaLlng hlm was promulgaLed on 9 May 2007 and was effecLlve
lmmedlaLely. 1he nexL day, Morales noLlfled Lhe vlce mayor's offlce of our declslon. 1he vlce mayor assumed Lhe offlce of Lhe
mayor from 17 May 2007 up Lo 30 !une 2007. 1he assumpLlon by Lhe vlce mayor of Lhe offlce of Lhe mayor, no maLLer how shorL lL
may seem lnLerrupLed Morales' conLlnulLy of servlce. 1hus, Morales dld noL hold offlce for Lhe full Lerm of 1 !uly 2004 Lo 30 !une
2007. (ulzon v. CCMLLLC, eL al., C.8. no. 182088, !anuary 30, 2009).

1Ak

1ax exempt|on |s construed str|ct|y.

ln uovoo Otleotol lecttlc coopetotlve loc. v. 1be ltovloce of uovoo Otleotol, C.8. no. 170901, !anuary 20, 2009, Lhe SC
once agaln sald LhaL because Laxes are Lhe llfeblood of Lhe naLlon, Lhe courL has always applled Lhe docLrlne of sLrlcL lnLerpreLaLlon
ln consLrulng Lax exempLlons. A clalm for exempLlon from Lax paymenLs musL be clearly shown and be based on language ln Lhe
law Loo plaln Lo be mlsLaken. Llsewlse sLaLed, LaxaLlon ls Lhe rule, exempLlon Lherefrom ls Lhe excepLlon. (aseo 8ealLy &
uevelopmenL CorporaLlon v. CourL of Appeals, eL al., C.8. no. 119286, CcLober 13, 2004, 440 SC8A 233).

3-1LkM LIMI1

O - Nlcoslo 8olos too fot looooq 8otooqoy lo uools, 8obol lo tbe 1994, 1997 ooJ 2002 botooqoy electloos ooJ woo.

eLlLloner conLended LhaL he ls quallfled Lo run for Lhe poslLlon of looooq 8otooqoy ln Lhe CcLober 29, 2007 8otooqoy and
5ooqqoolooq kobotooo LlecLlons slnce he dld noL serve conLlnuously Lhree consecuLlve Lerms. Pe admlLLed LhaL ln Lhe 1994, 1997
and 2002 8otooqoy elecLlons, whlle servlng hls Lhlrd Lerm as looooq 8otooqoy, he ran as Munlclpal Councllor of uauls, 8ohol, and
won. Cn !uly 1, 2004, he assumed offlce and, consequenLly, lefL hls posL as looooq 8otooqoy by operaLlon of law. Pe averred LhaL
he served Lhe full Lerm as member of Lhe 5ooqqoolooq 8oyoo unLll !une 30, 2007. Cn CcLober 29, 2007, he flled hls CerLlflcaLe of
Candldacy for looooq 8otooqoy and won. 1he CCMLLLC lssued an order dlsquallfylng hlm as a candldaLe for looooq 8otooqoy
slnce he dld noL compleLe hls Lhlrd Lerm by operaLlon of law. ls hls conLenLlon correcL? Why?

Answer: no. Sec. 8. 1he Lerm of offlce of elecLlve local offlclals, excepL barangay offlclals, whlch shall be deLermlned by law, shall be
Lhree years, and no such offlclal shall serve for more Lhan Lhree consecuLlve Lerms. volunLary renunclaLlon of Lhe offlce for any
lengLh of Llme shall noL be consldered as an lnLerrupLlon ln Lhe conLlnulLy of hls servlce for Lhe full Lerm for whlch he was elecLed.

uovlJ v. commlssloo oo lectloos, 271 SC8A 90 (1997) elucldaLes LhaL Lhe ConsLlLuLlon dld noL expressly prohlblL Congress
from flxlng any Lerm of offlce for botooqoy offlclals, Lhereby leavlng Lo Lhe lawmakers full dlscreLlon Lo flx such Lerm ln accordance
wlLh Lhe exlgencles of publlc servlce. 1he dlscusslons ln Lhe ConsLlLuLlonal Commlsslon showed LhaL Lhe Lerm of offlce of botooqoy
offlclals would be [a]s may be deLermlned by law," and more preclsely, [a]s provlded for ln Lhe Local CovernmenL Code." SecLlon
43(b) of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code provldes LhaL botooqoy offlclals are covered by Lhe Lhree-Lerm llmlL, whlle SecLlon 43(c)
Lhereof sLaLes LhaL Lhe Lerm of offlce of botooqoy offlclals shall be flve (3) years. 1he clLed provlslons read, Lhus:

Sec. 43. 1etm of Offlce. - x x x

(b) no local elecLlve offlclal shall serve for more Lhan Lhree (3) consecuLlve Lerms ln Lhe same poslLlon.
volunLary renunclaLlon of Lhe offlce for any lengLh of Llme shall noL be consldered as an lnLerrupLlon ln Lhe
conLlnulLy of servlce for Lhe full Lerm for whlch Lhe elecLlve offlclal concerned was elecLed.

5octotes v. commlssloo oo lectloos, 391 SC8A 437 (2002) held LhaL Lhe rule on Lhe Lhree-Lerm llmlL, embodled ln Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon and Lhe Local CovernmenL Code, has Lwo parLs:

x x x 1he f|rst part prov|des that an e|ect|ve |oca| off|c|a| cannot serve for more than three consecut|ve
terms. 1he clear lnLenL ls LhaL only consecuLlve Lerms counL ln deLermlnlng Lhe Lhree-Lerm llmlL rule. 1he second
part states that vo|untary renunc|at|on of off|ce for any |ength of t|me does not |nterrupt the cont|nu|ty of
serv|ce. 1he clear lnLenL ls LhaL lnvolunLary severance from offlce for any lengLh of Llme lnLerrupLs conLlnulLy of
servlce and prevenLs Lhe servlce before and afLer Lhe lnLerrupLlon from belng [olned LogeLher Lo form a
conLlnuous servlce or consecuLlve Lerms.
AfLer Lhree consecuLlve Lerms, an elecLlve local offlclal cannoL seek lmmedlaLe reelecLlon for a fourLh

27 | a b r c . p o l l . 0 9 - 1 0 / c r y s

Lerm. 1he prohlblLed elecLlon refers Lo Lhe nexL regular elecLlon for Lhe same offlce followlng Lhe end of Lhe Lhlrd
consecuLlve Lerm.

ln loozoolJo v. commlssloo oo lectloos, 311 SC8A 602 (1999) Lhe CourL sLaLed LhaL Lhe second parL of Lhe rule on Lhe
Lhree-Lerm llmlL shows Lhe clear lnLenL of Lhe framers of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon Lo bar any aLLempL Lo clrcumvenL Lhe Lhree-Lerm llmlL by
a volunLary renunclaLlon of offlce and aL Lhe same Llme respecL Lhe people's cholce and granL Lhelr elecLed offlclal full servlce of a
Lerm. 1he CourL held LhaL Lwo condlLlons for Lhe appllcaLlon of Lhe dlsquallflcaLlon musL concur: (1) LhaL Lhe offlclal concerned has
been elecLed for Lhree consecuLlve Lerms ln Lhe same governmenL posL, and (2) LhaL he has fully served Lhree consecuLlve Lerms.

lL ls undlspuLed LhaL peLlLloner was elecLed as looooq 8otooqoy for Lhree consecuLlve Lerms, saLlsfylng Lhe flrsL condlLlon
for dlsquallflcaLlon.

lndeed, peLlLloner was servlng hls Lhlrd Lerm as looooq 8otooqoy when he ran for 5ooqqoolooq 8oyoo member and,
upon wlnnlng, assumed Lhe poslLlon of 5ooqqoolooq 8oyoo member, Lhus, volunLarlly rellnqulshlng hls offlce as looooq 8otooqoy
whlch Lhe CourL deems as a volunLary renunclaLlon of sald offlce.

O - letltlooet otqoeJ tbot wbeo be ossomeJ tbe posltloo of 5ooqqoolooq 8oyoo membet, be left bls post os looooq 8otooqoy
by opetotloo of low, beoce, be JlJ oot folly setve bls tbltJ tetm os looooq 8otooqoy. ls bls cooteotloo cottect? wby?

Answer: no. 1he Lerm operaLlon of law" ls deflned by Lhe hlllpplne Legal Lncyclopedla as a Lerm descrlblng Lhe facL LhaL rlghLs
may be acqulred or losL by Lhe effecL of a legal rule wlLhouL any acL of Lhe person affecLed." 8lack's Law ulcLlonary also deflnes lL as
a Lerm LhaL expresses Lhe manner ln whlch rlghLs, and someLlmes llablllLles, devolve upon a person by Lhe mere appllcaLlon Lo Lhe
parLlcular LransacLlon of Lhe esLabllshed rules of law, wlLhouL Lhe acL or cooperaLlon of Lhe parLy hlmself."

An lnLerrupLlon ln Lhe servlce of a Lerm of offlce, by operaLlon of law, ls exempllfled ln Mooteboo v. commlssloo oo
lectloos, C.8. no. 180444, Aprll 9, 2008, 331 SC8A 30). 1he respondenL Lhereln, Seslnando l. oLencloso, !r., was elecLed and
served Lhree consecuLlve Lerms as Munlclpal Councllor of 1uburan, Cebu ln 1998-2001, 2001-2004, and 2004-2007. Powever,
durlng hls second Lerm, he succeeded as vlce-Mayor of 1uburan due Lo Lhe reLlremenL of Lhe vlce-Mayor pursuanL Lo SecLlon 44 of
8.A. no. 7160. oLencloso's assumpLlon of offlce as vlce-Mayor was consldered an lnvolunLary severance from hls offlce as
Munlclpal Councllor, resulLlng ln an lnLerrupLlon ln hls second Lerm of servlce. 1he CourL held LhaL lL could noL be deemed Lo have
been by reason of volunLary renunclaLlon because lL was by operaLlon of law. Pence, oLencloso was quallfled Lo run as candldaLe
for munlclpal councllor of Lhe MunlclpallLy of 1uburan, Cebu ln Lhe May 14, 2007 Synchronlzed naLlonal and Local LlecLlons. (See
also: 8or[a v. CCMLLLC, 293 SC8A 137 (1998).

ln Lhls case, peLlLloner dld noL flll ln or succeed Lo a vacancy by operaLlon of law. Pe lnsLead rellnqulshed hls offlce as
looooq 8otooqoy durlng hls Lhlrd Lerm when he won and assumed offlce as 5ooqqoolooq 8oyoo member of uauls, 8ohol, whlch ls
deemed a volunLary renunclaLlon of Lhe Cfflce of looooq 8otooqoy.

LLLC1ICN LAW

Cayat pr|nc|p|e not app||ed.

O - NotJo velosco, o llllploo cltlzeo ocpolteJ Ametlcoo cltlzeosblp. lotet oo be become o Jool cltlzeo. ne opplleJ fot teqlsttotloo os
o votet bot bls oppllcotloo wos JeoleJ, beoce, be flleJ bls petltloo fot loclosloo os votet wltb tbe M1c wblcb qtooteJ tbe petltloo.
1be k1c oo oppeol tevetseJ tbe otJet, beoce, be oppeoleJ to tbe cA bot tbe lottet JlsmlsseJ tbe oppeol fot lock of jotlsJlctloo. lo tbe
meootlme, be flleJ bls cettlflcote of cooJlJocy fot Moyot, beoce, loolopol flleJ o petltloo to Jeoy Joe cootse to ooJ/ot coocel bls
cOc boseJ oo qtoss mlstepteseototloo os to bls teslJeocy, beoce, JlspoollfleJ to vote. ne woo lo tbe electloos ooJ took bls ootb.
lloJloq motetlol mlstepteseototloos, tbe cOMlc oolllfleJ bls ptoclomotloo beoce, loolopol moveJ fot ptoclomotloo bot tbe
cOMlc JeoleJ tbe motloo, opplyloq tbe tole oo soccessloo, beoce, loolopol flleJ o petltloo fot cettlototl wltb tbe 5c lmpotloq
qtove obose of Jlsctetloo oo tbe pott of tbe cOMlc fot oot teqotJloq tbe k1c Jeclsloo Jlspoollfyloq velosco os o votet os o flool
joJqmeot so os to foll ooJet tbe coyot ptloclple os oo exceptloo to tbe Jocttloe oo tbe tejectloo of tbe secooJ plocet. ls tbe
cooteotloo cottect? wby?

Answer: no. Slnce Lhe dlsquallflcaLlon of velasco had noL yeL become flnal and execuLory before Lhe elecLlons, Lhe CCMLLLC
properly applled Lhe rule on successlon. coyot v. cOMlc, C.8. no. 163776, Aprll 24, 2007, 322 SC8A 23 does noL apply because
CayaL was dlsquallfled ln a flnal and execuLory [udgmenL before Lhe elecLlons. As Lhe only candldaLe allleng, who numerlcally losL
ln Lhe elecLlons, he was noL a second placer. Cn Lhe conLrary, allleng was Lhe sole and only placer, second Lo none. 1he docLrlne ln
Lhe re[ecLlon of Lhe second placer whlch Lrlggers Lhe rule on successlon does noL apply. (anlaqul vs. CCMLLLC, eL al., C.8. no.
188671, lebruary 24, 2010).

O - wbot ote tbe speclflc requlremenLs for Lhe appllcaLlon of Lhe docLrlne on Lhe re[ecLlon of Lhe second placer?

Answer: 1he docLrlne wlll apply lf Lwo condlLlons concur: (1) Lhe declslon on CayaL's dlsquallflcaLlon remalned pendlng on elecLlon
day, resulLlng ln Lhe presence of Lwo mayoralLy candldaLes, and (2) Lhe declslon on CayaL's dlsquallflcaLlon became flnal only afLer
Lhe elecLlons. (anlaqul v. CCMLLLC, eL al., C.8. no. 188671, lebruary 24, 2010, Morales, !).

O - wbot ls tbe totlooole bebloJ tbe tejectloo of tbe secooJ plocet? xplolo.

28 | a b r c . p o l l . 0 9 - 1 0 / c r y s


Answer: 1o slmpllsLlcally assume LhaL Lhe second placer would have recelved Lhe oLher voLes would be Lo subsLlLuLe our [udgmenL
for Lhe mlnd of Lhe voLer. 1he second placer ls [usL LhaL, a second placer. Pe losL Lhe elecLlons. Pe was repudlaLed by elLher a
ma[orlLy or plurallLy of voLers. Pe could noL be consldered Lhe flrsL among quallfled candldaLes because ln a fleld whlch excludes
Lhe dlsquallfled candldaLe, Lhe condlLlons would have subsLanLlally changed. We are noL prepared Lo exLrapolaLe Lhe resulLs under
such clrcumsLances.

1o allow Lhe defeaLed and repudlaLed candldaLe Lo Lake over Lhe mayoralLy desplLe hls re[ecLlon by Lhe elecLoraLe ls Lo
dlsenfranchlse Lhem Lhrough no faulL on Lhelr parL, and Lo undermlne Lhe lmporLance and Lhe meanlng of democracy and Lhe rlghL
of Lhe people Lo elecL offlclals of Lhelr cholce.

1heoreLlcally, Lhe second placer could recelve [usL one voLe. ln such a case, lL would be absurd Lo proclalm Lhe LoLally
repudlaLed candldaLe as Lhe voLers' cholce. (anlaqul v. CCMLLLC, eL al., C.8. no. 188671, lebruary 24, 2010, clLlng kare v.
CCMLLLC, C.8. no. 137326, Aprll 28, 2004, 428 SC8A 264, Morales, !).

ADMINIS1kA1IVL LAW

Lxhaust|on of adm|n|strat|ve remedy, |mportance,
effect |f not resorted to.

Cnce more, Lhe SC ln Ooqsoco, et ol. v. noo. Motlooo Molooes, C.8. no. 182063, CcLober 27, 2009, had Lhe occaslon Lo
rule LhaL lL ls Lrue LhaL Lhe general rule ls LhaL before a parLy ls allowed Lo seek lnLervenLlon of Lhe courL, he or she should have
avalled hlmself or herself of all Lhe means of admlnlsLraLlve processes afforded hlm or her. Pence, lf resorL Lo a remedy wlLhln Lhe
admlnlsLraLlve machlnery can sLlll be made by glvlng Lhe admlnlsLraLlve offlcer concerned every opporLunlLy Lo declde on a maLLer
LhaL comes wlLhln hls or her [urlsdlcLlon, Lhen such remedy should be exhausLed flrsL before Lhe courL's [udlclal power can be
soughL. 1he premaLure lnvocaLlon of Lhe lnLervenLlon of Lhe courL ls faLal Lo one's cause of acLlon. 1he docLrlne of exhausLlon of
admlnlsLraLlve remedles ls based on pracLlcal and legal reasons. 1he avallmenL of admlnlsLraLlve remedy enLalls lesser expenses
and provldes for a speedler dlsposlLlon of conLroversles. lurLhermore, Lhe courLs of [usLlce, for reasons of comlLy and
convenlence, wlll shy away from a dlspuLe unLll Lhe sysLem of admlnlsLraLlve redress has been compleLed and complled wlLh, so as
Lo glve Lhe admlnlsLraLlve agency concerned every opporLunlLy Lo correcL lLs error and dlspose of Lhe case. Powever, Lhere are
several excepLlons Lo Lhls rule.

1he rule on Lhe exhausLlon of admlnlsLraLlve remedles ls lnLended Lo preclude a courL from arrogaLlng unLo lLself Lhe
auLhorlLy Lo resolve a conLroversy, Lhe [urlsdlcLlon over whlch ls lnlLlally lodged wlLh an admlnlsLraLlve body of speclal compeLence.
1hus, a case where Lhe lssue ralsed ls a purely legal quesLlon, well wlLhln Lhe compeLence, and Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe courL and noL
Lhe admlnlsLraLlve agency, would clearly consLlLuLe an excepLlon. 8esolvlng quesLlons of law, whlch lnvolve Lhe lnLerpreLaLlon and
appllcaLlon of laws, consLlLuLes essenLlally an exerclse of [udlclal power LhaL ls excluslvely allocaLed Lo Lhe Supreme CourL and such
lower courLs Lhe LeglslaLure may esLabllsh.

ln Lhls case, Lhe sole lssue peLlLloners ralsed before was wheLher Munlclpal Crdlnance no. 98-01 was valld and
enforceable desplLe Lhe absence, prlor Lo lLs enacLmenL, of a publlc hearlng held ln accordance wlLh ArLlcle 276 of Lhe
lmplemenLlng 8ules and 8egulaLlons of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code. 1hls ls undoubLedly a pure quesLlon of law, wlLhln Lhe
compeLence and [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe 81C Lo resolve.

aragraph 2(a) of SecLlon 3, ArLlcle vlll of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon, expressly esLabllshes Lhe appellaLe [urlsdlcLlon of Lhls CourL,
and lmplledly recognlzes Lhe orlglnal [urlsdlcLlon of lower courLs over cases lnvolvlng Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy or valldlLy of an
ordlnance.

ln I.M. 1oosoo ooJ co., loc. v. coott of Appeols, 113 hll. 673 (1968) oot v. lotetmeJlote Appellote coott, 232 hll. 613
(1987) and commlsslooet of lotetool keveooe v. 5ootos, 343 hll 441 (1997) Lhe CourL has afflrmed Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe 81C Lo
resolve quesLlons of consLlLuLlonallLy and valldlLy of laws (deemed Lo lnclude local ordlnances) ln Lhe flrsL lnsLance, wlLhouL
decldlng quesLlons whlch perLaln Lo leglslaLlve pollcy.