Romuladez vs Comelec

SPOUSES CARLOS S. ROMUALDEZ AND ERLINDA R. ROMUALDEZ,

PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND DENNIS GARAY,
RESPONDENTS.
FACTS:
Dennis Garay filed a case alleging that petitioners made false and
untruthful
representations in violation of Section 10[11] of Republic Act Nos. 8189.
The petitioners contended, inter alia that Section 45(j) of the Voters
Registration Act
was void for being vague as it did not refer to a definite provision of the law,
the violation
of which would constitute an election offense.
For resolution is the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner Spouses
Carlos
Romualdez and Erlinda Romualdez on 26 May 2008 from the Decision of this
Court
dated 30 April 2008.
ISSUE:
WoN criminal statute may be challenged considering and following the void
for
vagueness doctrine.
HELD:
The void-for-vagueness doctrine holds that a law is facially invalid if men of
common
intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its
application.
However, this Court has imposed certain limitations by which a criminal
statute, as in the
challenged law at bar, may be scrutinized. This Court has declared that facial
invalidation or an on-its-face invalidation of criminal statutes is not
appropriate.
Indeed, an on-its-face invalidation of criminal statutes would result in a
mass acquittal
of parties whose cases may not have even reached the courts. Such
invalidation would

constitute a departure from the usual requirement of actual case and

controversy and
permit decisions to be made in a sterile abstract context having no factual
concreteness.The rule established in our jurisdiction is, only statutes on free
speech,
religious freedom, and other fundamental rights may be facially challenged.
Under
no case may ordinary penal statutes be subjected to a facial challenge

FACTSCOMELEC Law Department filed two separate informations before the

RTC
Barauen, Leyte against spouses Carlos S. Romualdez and Erlinda R.Romualde
z for knowingly making false or untruthful statement in their application for
voters registration relative to their place of residence and non registration
in other areas, which are violations of Sections 10(g) and (j), inr elation to
Section 45(j) of RA 8189 or the Voters Registration Act, to wit: SEC. 10
Registration of Voters
.
xxx
The application shall contain thefollowing data: x x x (g) Periods of residence
in the Philippines and in
theplace of registration; x x x (j) A statement that the application is not aregi
stered voter of any precinct;SEC. 45.
Election Offense
. The following shall be considered election offenses under this Act: x x x
(j) Violation of any of the provisions of this Act.Pending the above case, the
spouses filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari against COMELEC, on the
ground, among others, of the unconstitutionality of Section 45(j) for being
contrary to the fair notice requirement Section 14(1)and Section 14(2),
Article III of the 1987 Constitution, as such penal provisionis vague on its
face.
ISSUEWON Section 45(j) of RA 8189 is unconstitutional for having uncertain
election prohibition.
RULINGNo, the Supreme Court held. Using the void for vagueness doctrine, it
the law is said to be facially invalid only if men of common intelligence must
necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. As
structured, Section 45 of RA 8189 makes a recital of election offenses under
the same Act. Section 45(j) clearly specifies that a violation of any of the
provisions of RA 8189 is an election offense. The language of
Section45(j) is precise. The challenged provision renders itself to no other int
erpretation and involves no guesswork.

Garcillano vs committees
Facts: During the hype of Arroyo administration, a new controversy arises.
During the 2007 election the conversation of President Arroyo and the
herein petitioner Virgilio Garciliano, COMELEC regional director, regarding the
desire of the president to have a favourable outcome in terms of his
senatoriables. Such conversation was recorded and was played during the
house of representative investigation. Because of such turn of events, a
petition was filed before the court praying that such playing of the illegally
seized communication was in violation of RA 4200 or the anti-wire tapping
law. Also such petition for injunction prays that the Senate committee be
prevented from further conducting such investigation for the basic reason
that there was no proper publication of the senate rules, empowering them
to make such investigation of the unlawfully seized documents.
Issue: Whether or not there was proper publication of the rules as to
empower the senate to further proceed with their investigation?
Held: No, the Supreme Court mentioned the following:
The Senate cannot be allowed to continue with the conduct of the
questioned legislative inquiry without duly published rules of procedure, in
clear derogation of the constitutional requirement.
Section 21, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides that "the
Senate or the House of Representatives, or any of its respective committees
may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly
published rules of procedure." The requisite of publication of the rules is
intended to satisfy the basic requirements of due process.Publication is
indeed imperative, for it will be the height of injustice to punish or otherwise
burden a citizen for the transgression of a law or rule of which he had no
notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one.What constitutes publication
is set forth in Article 2 of the Civil Code, which provides that "laws shall take
effect after 15 days following the completion of their publication either in the
Official Gazette, or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines."
Respondents justify their non-observance of the constitutionally mandated
publication by arguing that the rules have never been amended since 1995
and, despite that, they are published in booklet form available to anyone for
free, and accessible to the public at the Senates internet web page.
The Court does not agree. The absence of any amendment to the rules
cannot justify the Senates defiance of the clear and unambiguous language
of Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution. The organic law instructs, without
more, that the Senate or its committees may conduct inquiries in aid of
legislation only in accordance with duly published rules of procedure, and

does not make any distinction whether or not these rules have undergone
amendments or revision. The constitutional mandate to publish the said rules
prevails over any custom, practice or tradition followed by the Senate.
The invocation by the respondents of the provisions of R.A. No.
8792,otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, to support
their claim of valid publication through the internet is all the more incorrect.
R.A. 8792 considers an electronic data message or an electronic document
as the functional equivalent of a written document only for evidentiary
purposes.In other words, the law merely recognizes the admissibility in
evidence (for their being the original) of electronic data messages and/or
electronic documents.It does not make the internet a medium for publishing
laws, rules and regulations.
Given this discussion, the respondent Senate Committees, therefore, could
not, in violation of the Constitution, use its unpublished rules in the
legislative inquiry subject of these consolidated cases. The conduct of
inquiries in aid of legislation by the Senate has to be deferred until it shall
have caused the publication of the rules, because it can do so only "in
accordance with its duly published rules of procedure."
Indeed the inquiry to be conducted by the senate in aid of legislation cannot
proceed for the reason that the rules that they will observe was not properly
published as provided by the Fundamental Law of the land. Such inquiry if
allowed without observance of the required publication will put a persons
life, liberty and property at stake without due process of law. Also, the
further assertion of the senate that they already published such rules
through their web page, in observance of the RA 8792 or the Electronic
Commerce Act was only viewed by the court as matter of evidence and still
does not conforme with what the constitution propounded.
In this regard the high court granted the petition for injunction preventing
the senate to conduct such inquiry in aid of legislation.
SURIGAO ELECTRIC VS ERC
The Association of Mindanao Rural Electric Cooperatives, as representative of
SURNECO and of the other 33 rural electric cooperatives in Mindanao, filed a
petition before the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) for the approval of the
formula for automatic cost adjustment and adoption of the National Power
Corporation (NPC) restructured rate adjustment to comply with Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 7832. The ERC (replaces ERB) hereby confirms the Purchased
Power Adjustment (PPA) of Surigao Del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(SURNECO) for the period February 1996 to July 2004 which resulted to
an over-recovery for the amount of PhP18,188,794.00. In this connection,
SURNECO is hereby directed to refund to its Main Island consumers starting

the next billing cycle from receipt of this Order until such time that the full
amount shall have been refunded. But in Hikdop Island its resulted to
an under-recovery for the amount of PhP2,478,045.00. SURNECO is hereby
authorized to collect from its Hikdop Island consumers starting the next
billing cycle from receipt of this Order until such time that the full amount
shall have been collected.
Accordingly, SURNECO is directed to:
a) Reflect the PPA refund/collection as a separate item in the bill using the
phrase "Previous Years Adjustment on Power Cost";
b) Submit, within ten (10) days from its initial implementation of the
refund/collection, a sworn statement indicating its compliance with the
aforecited directive; and
c) Accomplish and submit a report in accordance with the attached
prescribed format, on or before the 30th day of January of the succeeding
year and every year thereafter until the amount shall have been fully
refunded/collected.
SURNECO filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the
ERC. So, SURNECO went to CA via petition for review, but it was also denied.
.
Issue:
Is SURNECO denied in Due Process?
Held:
No.I n directing SURNECO to refund its over-recoveries based on PPA
policies, which only ensured that the PPA mechanism remains a purely costrecovery mechanism and not a revenue-generating scheme for the electric
cooperatives, the ERC merely exercised its authority to regulate and approve
the rates imposed by the electric cooperatives on their consumers. The ERC
simply performed its mandate to protect the public interest imbued in those
rates. The regulation of rates to be charged by public utilities is founded
upon the police powers of the State and statutes prescribing rules for the
control and regulation of public utilities are a valid exercise thereof. When
private property is used for a public purpose and is affected with public
interest, it ceases to be jurisprivati only and becomes subject to regulation.
The regulation is to promote the common good. Administrative due process
simply requires an opportunity to explain ones side or to seek
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.It means being given
the opportunity to be heard before judgment, and for this purpose, a formal
trial-type hearing is not even essential. It is enough that the parties are given
a fair and reasonable chance to demonstrate their respective positions and
to present evidence in support thereof.
Wherefore, SURNECO was not denied in due process.

Heritage hotel vs NUNHRAIN

The respondents petition for certification election was granted. Petitioner then discover
ed that respondent had failed to submit to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) its annu
al financial report for several years and the list of its members since it filed its registratio
n papers in 1995. Consequently, it filed a Petition for Cancellation of Registration of resp
ondent, on the ground of the non-submission of the said documents. Petitioner prayed t
hat respondents Certificate of Creation of Local/Chapter be cancelled and its name be d
eleted from the list of legitimate labor organizations. It further requested the suspension
of the certification election proceedings. Nevertheless, the certification election pushed t
hrough and the respondent won.
The Regional Director of DOLE-NCR and DOLE Secretary both held that constitutionall
y guaranteed freedom of association and right of workers to self-organization outweighe
d respondents noncompliance with the statutory requirements to maintain its status as
a legitimate labor organization.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the failure to comply with the statutory requirement(filing financial repo
rts and the list of its members) sufficient ground for the cancellation of registration of th
e respondent as a labor union.

HELD:
No, the non-compliance should not be a ground for the cancellation. Articles 238 and 23
9 of the Labor Code provide that failure to file financial reports and the list of its membe
rs are grounds for the cancellation of Union Organization. However, consideration must
be taken of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article XIII, Section 3 of the Constitut
ion, i.e., the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiati
ons, and peaceful concerted activities. Labor authorities should bear in mind that registr
ation confers upon a union the status of legitimacy and the concomitant right and privile
ges granted by law to a legitimate labor organization, particularly the right to participate
in or ask for certification election in a bargaining unit. Thus, the cancellation of a certific
ate of registration is the equivalent of snuffing out the life of a labor organization. For wi
thout such registration, it loses as a rule its rights under the Labor Code.

Furthermore, that the Labor Codes provisions on cancellation of union registration and
on reportorial requirements have been recently amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 94
81, An Act Strengthening the Workers Constitutional Right to Self-Organization, Amen
ding for the Purpose Presidential Decree No. 442, As Amended, Otherwise Known as the

Labor Code of the Philippines, which says that failure to file financial reports and list of
union members shall not be a ground for cancellation of union registration but shall sub
ject the erring officers or members to suspension, expulsion from membership, or any a
ppropriate penalty