Codilla vs Martinez

FACTS:

 The Mayor of Tagum left for Negros Occidental to attend to a sick brother.
 DESIGNATED the VM to act in his place until further advice. (VM designated Ranking
Councilor, then the latter designated the 3rd Ranking councillor all for health reasons)
 Bermudez was not also in good health and so he DESIGNATED the 3rd ranking councillor
Martinez effective on the same date (Jan. 25, 1956 until further notice)
 The 3rd ranking councillor (Martinez) was designated as Mayor.
 Martinez assumed office and his 1st official act was to separate from the service the
petitioners as policemen of the municipality
 He appointed several persons as Municipal policemen who immediately qualified by taking
his oath of office.
 Petitioners filed a petition for Mandamus against the acting Mayor alleging that their
separation was illegal because being civil service employees, their employment cannot be
terminated except for cause.
 Respondents answered that the appointments of the petitioners were made in temporary
capacity, because they are not civil service eligible, same was only valid for 3 months,
continuance beyond the expiration of the period was illegal.
 Even assuming that Acting Mayor had no authority to terminate their employment, his
action was validated when incumbent Mayor endorsed and ratified the same

RTC: dismissed the petition

GROUND: Separation was made in accordance with law

ISSUES: WON designation was not valid and separation is illegal

Separation was illegal because the designation of the Acting Mayor was not made in accordance
with the Revised Administrative Code; such designation must be made by the Provincial Governor
with consent of the Provincial Board.

HELD:

 Acting Mayor is not a usurper, but at most a de facto officer whose acts may be given
validity in the eye of the law
 Although designation was irregular, still he was acting under a color of authority as
distinguished from a usurper who is one who has neither title nor color of right to an office.
 Acts of the acting mayor are official acts of a de facto officer if made within the scope of
authority vested by law. VALID AND BINDING
 All his official acts done were subsequently endorsed and ratified by the incumbent mayor
when he returned to office.
 All elements of a de facto officer are present.
 There must be an office having a de facto existence, or lease one recognized by law and
claimant must be in actual possession of the office under color of title or authority.


De Facto vs De Jure
  De facto officer is one who has the reputation or appearance of being the officer he
assumed to be but who, in fact, under the law has no right or title to the office he assumes
to hold.

De Facto vs Usurper or intruder

 De facto holds by some color of right or title while usurper intrudes upon the office and
assumes to exercise its functions w/o either legal title or color of right to such office

Eligibility

Refers to the endowment/requirement/accomplishment that fits one for a public office.

Qualification

Endowment that fits one for office or acts which a person is required by law to do before assuming
office (e.g. Oath taking)

There must be rational connection between the requirement and duties.

Who prescribes qualification?

Congress prescribes eligibility, qualifications, and disqualifications and provide for methods of filling
offices, subject to Constitutional limitations.

Time of Possession of Qualifications

If specified by the Constitution or law: Time specified

If Constitution or law is silent:

 At the time of commencement of term or induction into office

 At the time of the election or appointment

GR: at the time of election, appointment or assumption

Laserna vs DBB

FACTS:

Petitioners are assailing the validity of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 insofar as it
requires mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office, students of secondary and tertiary
schools, officers and employees of public and private offices, and persons charged before the
prosecutor’s office with certain offenses.

Atty. Laserna, as citizen and tax payer alleged that certain provisions of such law be struck down as
unconstitutional for infringing on the constitutional right to privacy, the right against unreasonable
searches and seizure, and the right against self-incrimination for being contrary to due process and
equal protection guarantess.

1st issue: Locus Standi

Laserna failed to allege any incident amounting to a violation of the constitutional rights mentioned
in their separate opinions. However, the court relaxed on such rule owing primarily to the
transcendental importance and the paramount public interest involved.

2nd issue: Constitutionality of Sec. 36 of RA 9165 on the following:

Persons accused of crimes

Court finds no valid justification for mandatory drug testing

Students

Constitutional viability of the mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug testing for students
emanates primarily from the waiver by the students of their right to privacy when they seek entry
to the school, and from their voluntarily submitting their persons to the parental authority of
school authorities

Private and Public Employees

Constitutional soundness of the mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug testing proceeds from
the reasonableness of the drug test policy and requirement.

Persons charged before the public prosecutor’s office with criminal offenses punishable with 6
years and 1 day imprisonment.

Operative concepts of the mandatory drug testing:

 Randomness
 Suspicionless

In their case, mandatory drug testing can never be random or suspicionless.

 They are not randomly picked; neither they are beyond suspicion.
 They do not necessarily consent to the procedure, let alone waive their right to privacy.
 It is a blatant attempt to harness a medical test as a tool for criminal prosecution., contrary
to the stated objective of the law.
 It would violate a person’s right to privacy guaranteed under the Constitution.
 Worst, the accused are veritably forced to incriminate themselves.

Monsanto vs Factoran

1. What happened in Monsanto vs Factoran?

2. Are you saying that pardon does not obliterate the crime?
3. Did she not argue that she was not convicted to begin with?
4. If you are pardoned, what do you need to do to complete the pardon?
5. What is the implication of acceptance?
6. What does pardon give you back insofar as public service officer?
7. Are you going to take back the pardoned officer?
8.