Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 15

Put your heart, mind, and soul into even occupation tax on persons exercising various

your smallest acts. This is the secret of professions in the city and penalizing non-
success. -Swami Sivananda payment of the same. Punsalan, et al paid the
same under protest and filed suit with the
court. Petitioners contend that the ordinance is
POWER OF TAXATION unjust and oppressive and amounts to double
taxation. The lower court upheld the validity of
Pascual vs. Sec of Public Works and
the provision of law authorizing the enactment
of the ordinance but declared the ordinance
FACTS: In 1953, Republic Act No. 920 was itself illegal and void on the ground that the
passed. This law appropriated P85,000.00 for penalty there in provided for non-payment of
the construction, reconstruction, repair, the tax was not legally authorized. Both parties
extension and improvement Pasig feeder road appealed the courts decision.
terminals. Wenceslao Pascual, then governor Issue: Whether or not Ordinance No 3398
of Rizal, assailed the validity of the law. He constitute double taxation?
claimed that the appropriation was actually Decision: Decision reversed. The Legislature
going to be used for private use for the may select what occupations shall be taxed,
terminals sought to be improved were part of and in the exercise of that discretion it may tax
the Antonio Subdivision. The said Subdivision is all, or it may select for taxation certain classes
owned by Senator Jose Zulueta who was a and leave the others untaxed. Manila offers a
member of the same Senate that passed and more lucrative field for the practice of the
approved the same RA. Pascual claimed that professions, so that it is but fair that the
Zulueta misrepresented in Congress the fact professionals in Manila be made to pay a
that he owns those terminals and that his higher occupation tax than their brethren in the
property would be unlawfully enriched at the provinces. The ordinance imposes the tax upon
expense of the taxpayers if the said RA would every person exercising or pursuing in
be upheld. Pascual then prayed that the the City of Manila naturally any one of the
Secretary of Public Works and Communications occupations named, but does not say that such
be restrained from releasing funds for such person must have his office in Manila. The
purpose. Zulueta, on the other hand, perhaps argument against double taxation may not be
as an afterthought, donated the said property invoked where one tax is imposed by the state
to the City of Pasig. and the other is imposed by the city

ISSUE: Whether or not the appropriation is

LLadoc v. CIR (14 SCRA 292)

A gift tax is not a property tax, but an excise

tax imposed on the transfer of property by way
HELD: No, the appropriation is void for being of gift inter vivos.
an appropriation for a private purpose. The
subsequent donation of the property to the
government to make the property public does Facts: Sometime in 1957, M.B. Estate Inc., of
not cure the constitutional defect. The fact that Bacolod City, donated 10,000.00 pesos in cash
the law was passed when the said property was to Fr. Crispin Ruiz, the parish priest of Victorias,
still a private property cannot be ignored. In Negros Occidental, and predecessor of Fr.
accordance with the rule that the taxing power Lladoc, for the construction of a new Catholic
must be exercised for public purposes only, church in the locality. The donated amount was
money raised by taxation can be expanded spent for such purpose.
only for public purposes and not for the
advantage of private individuals. Inasmuch as On March 3, 1958, the donor M.B. Estate filed
the land on which the projected feeder roads the donor's gift tax return. Under date of April
were to be constructed belonged then to 29, 1960. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Zulueta, the result is that said appropriation issued an assessment for the donee's gift tax
sought a private purpose, and, hence, was null against the Catholic Parish of Victorias of which
and void. petitioner was the parish priest.

Issue: Whether or not the imposition of gift tax

Punsalan VS. Municipal board of manila gr is valid despite the fact that the Constitution
4817 provides an exemptions and that Fr. Lladoc was
Facts: Municipal Board of Manila enacted not the Parish priest at the time of donation.
Ordinance No. 3398 imposing municipal
Held: Yes, the imposition of the gift tax was HELD: Section 22, paragraph 3, Article VI, of
valid. Section 22(3) Article VI of the the then 1935 Philippine Constitution,
Constitution contemplates exemption only from expressly grants exemption from realty taxes
payment of taxes assessed on such properties for cemeteries, churches and parsonages or
as Property taxes contra distinguished from convents appurtenant thereto, and all lands,
Excise taxes. The imposition of the gift tax on buildings, and improvements used exclusively
the property used for religious purpose is not a for religious, charitable or educational
violation of the Constitution. A gift tax is not a purposes. Reasonable emphasis has always
property by way of gift inter vivos, the been made that the exemption extends to
imposition of which on property used facilities which are incidental to and reasonably
exclusively for religious purposes, does not necessary for the accomplishment of the main
constitute an impairment of the Constitution. purposes. The use of the school building or lot
As well observed by the learned respondent for commercial purposes is neither
Court, the phrase "exempt from taxation," as contemplated by law, nor by jurisprudence. In
employed in the Constitution (supra) should the case at bar, the lease of the first floor of
not be interpreted to mean exemption from all the building to the Northern Marketing
kinds of taxes. And there being no clear, Corporation cannot by any stretch of the
positive or express grant of such privilege by imagination be considered incidental to the
law, in favor of petitioner, the exemption herein purpose of education. The test of exemption
must be denied. from taxation is the use of the property for
purposes mentioned in the Constitution.
The decision of the CFI Abra (Branch I) is
affirmed subject to the modification that half of
Abra Valley College vs Aquino (G.R. No. L- the assessed tax be returned to the petitioner.
39086) The modification is derived from the fact that
the ground floor is being used for commercial
FACTS: Petitioner, an educational corporation purposes (leased) and the second floor being
and institution of higher learning duly used as incidental to education (residence of
incorporated with the Securities and Exchange the director)
Commission in 1948, filed a complaint to annul
and declare void the Notice of Seizure and
the Notice of Sale of its lot and building
located at Bangued, Abra, for non-payment of ARTICLE III THE BILL OF RIGHTS
real estate taxes and penalties amounting to
P5,140.31. Said Notice of Seizure by
respondents Municipal Treasurer and Provincial PBM Employees vs PBM
Treasurer, defendants below, was issued for the
satisfaction of the said taxes thereon. Facts: The petitioner Philippine Blooming Mills
Employees Organization (PBMEO) is a
The parties entered into a stipulation of facts legitimate labor union composed of the
adopted and embodied by the trial court in its employees of the respondent Philippine
questioned decision. The trial court ruled for Blooming Mills Co., Inc., and petitioners.
the government, holding that the second floor Benjamin Pagcu and Rodulfo Munsod are
of the building is being used by the director for officers and members of the petitioner Union.
residential purposes and that the ground floor Petitioners claim that on March 1, 1969, they
used and rented by Northern Marketing decided to stage a mass demonstration at
Corporation, a commercial establishment, and Malacaang on March 4, 1969, in protest
thus the property is not being used exclusively against alleged abuses of the Pasig police.
for educational purposes. Instead of perfecting PBMEO thru Pagcu confirmed the planned
an appeal, petitioner availed of the instant demonstration and stated that the
petition for review on certiorari with prayer for demonstration or rally cannot be cancelled
preliminary injunction before the Supreme because it has already been agreed upon in the
Court, by filing said petition on 17 August meeting. Pagcu explained further that the
1974. demonstration has nothing to do with the
Company because the union has no quarrel or
dispute with Management. The Management,
ISSUE: Whether or not the lot and building are thru Atty. C.S. de Leon, Company personnel
used exclusively for educational purposes. manager, informed PBMEO that the
demonstration is an inalienable right of the
union guaranteed by the Constitution but
emphasized that any demonstration for that to 2 o'clock in the afternoon, is a plea for the
matter should not unduly prejudice the normal preservation merely of their property rights.
operation of the Company. Workers who The employees' pathetic situation was a stark
without previous leave of absence approved by reality abused, harassment and persecuted
the Company, particularly , the officers present as they believed they were by thepeace
who are the organizers of the demonstration, officers of the municipality. As above intimated,
who shall fail to report for work the following the condition in which the employees found
morning shall be dismissed, because such themselves vis-a-vis the local police of Pasig,
failure is a violation of the existing CBA and, was a matter that vitally affected their right to
therefore, would be amounting to an illegal individual existence as well as that of their
strike. Because the petitioners and their families. Material loss can be repaired or
members numbering about 400 proceeded with adequately compensated.
the demonstration despite the pleas of the
respondent Company that the first shift The debasement of the human being broken in
workers should not be required to participate in morale and brutalized in spirit-can never be
the demonstration and that the workers in the fully evaluated in monetary terms. As
second and third shifts should be utilized for heretofore stated, the primacy of human rights
the demonstration from 6 A.M. to 2 P.M. on freedom of expression, of peaceful assembly
March 4, 1969, filed a charge against and of petition for redress of grievances over
petitioners and other employees who property rights has been sustained.
composed the first shift, for a violation of
Republic Act No. 875(Industrial Peace Act), and
of the CBA providing for 'No Strike and No To regard the demonstration against
Lockout.' Petitioners were held guilty in by CIR policeofficers, not against the employer, as
for bargaining in bad faith, hence this appeal. evidence of bad faith in collective bargaining
and hence a violation of the collective
bargaining agreement and a cause for the
Issue: Whether or Not the petitioners right to dismissal from employment of the
freedom of speech and to peaceable assemble demonstratingemployees, stretches unduly the
violated. compass of the collective
bargainingagreement, is "a potent means of
inhibiting speech" and therefore inflicts a moral
as well as mortal wound on the constitutional
Held: Yes. A constitutional or valid guarantees of free expression, of peaceful
infringement of human rights requires a more assembly and of petition. Circulation is one of
stringent criterion, namely existence of a grave the aspects of freedom of expression.
and immediate danger of a substantive evil
which the State has the right to prevent. If demonstrators are reduced by one-third, then
by that much the circulation of the Issue raised
This is not present in the case. It was to the by the demonstration is diminished. The more
interest herein private respondent firm to rally the participants, the more persons can be
to the defense of, and take up the cudgels for, apprised of the purpose of the rally. Moreover,
its employees, so that they can report to work the absence of one-third of their members will
free from harassment, vexation or peril and as be regarded as a substantial indication of
consequence perform more efficiently their disunity in their ranks which will enervate their
respective tasks enhance its productivity as position and abet continued alleged police
well as profits. Herein respondent employer did persecution.
not even offer to intercede for its employees
with the local police. In seeking sanctuary Held(2): The court held that the primacy of
behind their freedom of expression well as their human rights such as freedom of expression, of
right of assembly and of petition against peaceful assembly and of petition for redress of
alleged persecution of local officialdom, grievances over property rights has been
theemployees and laborers of herein private sustained. The obvious purpose of the mass
respondent firm were fighting for their very demonstration staged by the workers of the
survival, utilizing only the weapons afforded respondent firm was for their mutual aid and
them by the Constitution the untrammelled protection against alleged police abuses, denial
enjoyment of their basic human rights. of which was interference with or restraint on
the right of the employees to engage in such
The pretension of their employer that it would common action to better shield themselves
suffer loss or damage by reason of the absence against such alleged police indignities. Apart
of its employees from 6 o'clock in the morning from violating the constitutional guarantees of
free speech and assembly as well as the right longer assert his right to operate his market
to petition for redress of grievances of the stalls in the Pasay city market.
employees, the dismissal of the eight (8)
**Philippine Phospate Fertilizer Co. v
leaders of the workers for proceeding with the
Torres 231 SCRA 335 (1994)
demonstration and consequently being absent
from work, constitutes a denial of social justice Facts: Philphos Movement for Progress, Inc.
likewise assured by the fundamental law to (PMPI for brevity), filed with the Department of
these lowly employees. Labor and Employment a petition for
certification election among the supervisory
employees of petitioner, alleging that as a
Lao Ichong vs Jaime Hernandez supervisory union duly registered with the
Department of Labor and Employment it was
FACTS: Lao Ichong is a Chinese businessman seeking to represent the supervisory
who entered the country to take advantage of employees of Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer
business opportunities herein abound (then) Corporation. Mediator-Arbiter Rodolfo S. Milado
particularly in the retail business. For some issued an order directing the holding of a
time he and his fellow Chinese businessmen certification election among the supervisory
enjoyed a monopoly in the local market in employees of petitioner, excluding therefrom
Pasay. Until in June 1954 when Congress the superintendents and the professional and
passed the RA 1180 or the Retail Trade technical employees. However, the PMPI filed
Nationalization Act the purpose of which is to an amended petition with the Mediator-Arbiter
reserve to Filipinos the right to engage in the wherein it sought to represent not only the
retail business. Ichong then petitioned for the supervisory employees of petitioner but also its
nullification of the said Act on the ground that professional/technical and confidential
it contravened several treaties concluded by employees. The parties therein agreed to
the RP which, according to him, violates the submit their respective position papers and to
equal protection clause (pacta sund servanda). consider the amended petition submitted for
He said that as a Chinese businessman decision on the basis thereof and related
engaged in the business here in the country documents. Mediator-Arbiter Milado issued an
who helps in the income generation of the order granting the petition and directing the
country he should be given equal opportunity. holding of a certification election among the
"supervisory, professional (engineers, analysts,
mechanics, accountants, nurses, midwives,
ISSUE: Whether or not a law may invalidate or etc.), technical, and confidential employees.
supersede treaties or generally accepted PHILPHOS appealed the order to the Secretary
principles. of Labor and Employment who rendered a
decision through Undersecretary Bienvenido
HELD: Yes, a law may supersede a treaty or a Laguesma dismissing the appeal. PHILPHOS
generally accepted principle. In this case, there moved for reconsideration but the same was
is no conflict at all between the raised denied; hence, the instant petition alleging
generally accepted principle and with RA 1180. denial of due process on the part of the DOLE
The equal protection of the law clause does to which the mediator-arbiter was under.
not demand absolute equality amongst
residents; it merely requires that all persons Issue: Whether or Not there was denial of due
shall be treated alike, under like circumstances process.
and conditions both as to privileges conferred
and liabilities enforced; and, that the equal
protection clause is not infringed by legislation
Held: There was no denial of due process. The
which applies only to those persons falling
essence of due process is simply an
within a specified class, if it applies alike to all
opportunity to be heard or, as applied to
persons within such class, and reasonable
administrative proceedings, an opportunity to
grounds exist for making a distinction between
explain one's side or an opportunity to seek a
those who fall within such class and those who
reconsideration of the action or ruling
do not.
complained of petitioner PHILPHOS agreed to
For the sake of argument, even if it would be file its position paper with the Mediator-Arbiter
assumed that a treaty would be in conflict with and to consider the case submitted for decision
a statute then the statute must be upheld on the basis of the position papers filed by the
because it represented an exercise of the parties, there was sufficient compliance with
police power which, being inherent could not the requirement of due process, as petitioner
be bargained away or surrendered through the was afforded reasonable opportunity to present
medium of a treaty. Hence, Ichong can no its side. Moreover, petitioner could have, if it so
desired, insisted on a hearing to confront and unlimited discretion in the distribution of the
examine the witnesses of the other party. But it properties arbitrarily taken.
did not; instead it opted to submit its position
paper with the Mediator-Arbiter. Besides,
petitioner had all the opportunity to ventilate BAYANI M. ALONTE, PETITIONER, VS. HON.
its arguments in its appeal to the Secretary of MAXIMO A. SAVELLANO JR., NATIONAL
Restituto Ynot vs Intermediate Appellate
Court Due Process in Criminal Proceedings Waiver
of Right to Due Process
Police Power Not Validly Exercised
There had been an existing law which Facts: Bayani M. Alonte, incumbent Mayor of
prohibited the slaughtering of carabaos (EO Bian, Laguna, was accused of raping Juvie-Lyn
626). To strengthen the law, Marcos issued EO Punongbayan with accomplice Buenaventura
626-A which not only banned the movement of Concepcion. It was alleged that Concepcion
carabaos from interprovinces but as well as the befriended Juvie and had later lured her into
movement of carabeef. On 13 Jan 1984, Ynot Alontes house. The case was brought before
was caught transporting 6 carabaos from the Regional Trial Court of Bian. The counsel
Masbate to Iloilo. He was then charged in and the prosecutor later moved for a change of
violation of EO 626-A. Ynot averred EO 626-A as venue due to alleged intimidation. While the
unconstitutional for it violated his right to be change of venue was pending, Juvie executed
heard or his right to due process. He said that an affidavit of desistance. The prosecutor
the authority provided by EO 626-A to continued on with the case and the change of
outrightly confiscate carabaos even without venue was done notwithstanding opposition
being heard is unconstitutional. The lower court from Alonte. The case was raffled to the Manila
ruled against Ynot ruling that the EO is a valid Regional Trial Court under J Savellano.
exercise of police power in order to promote Savellano later found probable cause and had
general welfare so as to curb down the ordered the arrest of Alonte and Concepcion.
indiscriminate slaughter of carabaos. Thereafter, the prosecution presented Juvie and
had attested the voluntariness of her
desistance the same being due to media
pressure and that they would rather establish
ISSUE: Whether or not the law is valid. new life elsewhere. Case was then submitted
for decision and Savellano sentenced both
accused to reclusion perpetua. Savellano
HELD: The SC ruled that the EO is not valid as commented that Alonte waived his right to due
it indeed violates due process. EO 626-A process when he did not cross examine Juvie
ctreated a presumption based on the judgment when clarificatory questions were raised about
of the executive. The movement of carabaos the details of the rape and on the voluntariness
from one area to the other does not mean a of her desistance.
subsequent slaughter of the same would
ensue. Ynot should be given to defend himself ISSUE: Whether or not Alonte has been denied
and explain why the carabaos are being criminal due process.
transferred before they can be confiscated. The
SC found that the challenged measure is an
invalid exercise of the police power because HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that Savellano
the method employed to conserve the should inhibit himself from further deciding on
carabaos is not reasonably necessary to the the case due to animosity between him and the
purpose of the law and, worse, is unduly parties. There is no showing that Alonte waived
oppressive. Due process is violated because his right. The standard of waiver requires that it
the owner of the property confiscated is denied not only must be voluntary, but must be
the right to be heard in his defense and is knowing, intelligent, and done with sufficient
immediately condemned and punished. The awareness of the relevant circumstances and
conferment on the administrative authorities of likely consequences. Mere silence of the
the power to adjudge the guilt of the supposed holder of the right should not be so construed
offender is a clear encroachment on judicial as a waiver of right, and the courts must
functions and militates against the doctrine of indulge every reasonable presumption against
separation of powers. There is, finally, also an waiver. Savellano has not shown impartiality by
invalid delegation of legislative powers to the repeatedly not acting on numerous petitions
officers mentioned therein who are granted filed by Alonte. The case is remanded to the
lower court for retrial and the decision earlier
promulgated is nullified.
Held: A valid search must be authorized by a
search warrant issued by an appropriate
authority. However, a warrantless search is not
ANIAG VS. COMELEC [237 SCRA 194; G.R. violative of the Constitution for as long as the
NO. 104961; 7 OCT 1994] vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants
subjected to a body search, and the inspection
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law
of the vehicle is merely limited to a visual
Facts: In preparation for the synchronized search. In the case at bar, the guns were not
national and local elections, the COMELEC tucked in Arellanos waist nor placed within his
issued Resolution No. 2323, Gun Ban, reach, as they were neatly packed in gun cases
promulgating rules and regulations on bearing, and placed inside a bag at the back of the car.
carrying and transporting of firearm or other Given these circumstances, the PNP could not
deadly weapons on security personnel or have thoroughly searched the car lawfully as
bodyguards, on bearing arms by members of well as the package without violating the
security agencies or police organizations, and constitutional injunction. Absent any justifying
organization or maintenance of reaction forces circumstance specifically pointing to the
during the election period. COMELEC also culpability of petitioner and Arellano, the
issued Resolution No. 2327 providing for the search could not have been valid.
summary disqualification of candidates Consequently, the firearms obtained from the
engaged in gunrunning, using and transporting warrantless search cannot be admitted for any
of firearms, organizing special strike forces, purpose in any proceeding. It was also shown
and establishing spot checkpoints. Pursuant to in the facts that the PNP had not informed the
the Gun Ban, Mr. Serrapio Taccad, Sergeant public of the purpose of setting up the
at Arms of the House of Representatives, wrote checkpoint. Petitioner was also not among
petitioner for the return of the two firearms those charged by the PNP with violation of the
issued to him by the House of Representatives. Omnibus Election Code. He was not informed
Petitioner then instructed his driver, Arellano, by the City Prosecutor that he was a
to pick up the firearms from petitioners house respondent in the preliminary investigation.
and return them to Congress. The PNP set up a Such constituted a violation of his right to due
checkpoint. When the car driven by Arellano process. Hence, it cannot be contended that
approached the checkpoint, the PNP searched petitioner was fully given the opportunity to
the car and found the firearms. Arellano was meet the accusation against him as he was not
apprehended and detained. He then explained informed that he was himself a respondent in
the order of petitioner. Petitioner also explained the case. Thus, the warrantless search
that Arellano was only complying with the conducted by the PNP is declared illegal and
firearms ban, and that he was not a security the firearms seized during the search cannot
officer or a bodyguard. Later, COMELEC issued be used as evidence in any proceeding against
Resolution No.92-0829 directing the filing of the petitioner. Resolution No. 92-0829 is
information against petitioner and Arellano for unconstitutional, and therefore, set aside.
violation of the Omnibus Election Code, and for
petitioner to show cause why he should not be
disqualified from running for an elective G.R. No. 84818 December 18, 1989
position. Petitioner then questions the PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE
constitutionality of Resolution No. 2327. He CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. JOSE LUIS
argues that gunrunning, using or transporting A. ALCUAZ, as NTC Commissioner, and
firearms or similar weapons and other acts NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS
mentioned in the resolution are not within the COMMISSION, respondents.
provisions of the Omnibus Election Code. Thus,
according to petitioner, Resolution No. 2327 is Facts: The petition before us seeks to annul
unconstitutional. The issue on the and set aside an Order 1 issued by respondent
disqualification of petitioner from running in Commissioner Jose Luis Alcuaz of the National
the elections was rendered moot when he lost Telecommunications Commission
his bid for a seat in Congress in the elections.
Herein petitioner is engaged in providing for
Issue: Whether or Not petitioner can be validly services involving telecommunications.
prosecuted for instructing his driver to return Charging rates for certain specified lines that
the firearms issued to him on the basis of the were reduced by order of herein respondent
evidence gathered from the warrant less Jose AlcuazCommissioner of the National
search of his car. Telecommunications Commission. The rates
were ordered to be reduced by fifteen percent According to the Union however, this was
(15%) due to Executive Order No. 546 which merely a scheme to systematically terminate
granted the NTC the power to fix rates. Said the employees from work, and that the
order was issued without prior notice and shortage of soles is unsupported. It claims that
hearing. Ang Tibay is guilty of ULP because the owner,
Teodoro, is discriminating against the National
Under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 5514, Labor Union, and unjustly favoring the National
petitioner was exempt from the jurisdiction of Workers Brotherhood, which was allegedly
the then Public Service Commission, now sympathetic to the employer.
respondent NTC. However, pursuant to
Executive Order No. 196 issued on June 17, The petitioner, Ang Tibay, has filed an
1987, petitioner was placed under the opposition both to the motion for
jurisdiction, control and regulation of reconsideration of the respondent Court of
respondent NTC Industrial Relations and to the motion for new
trial of the respondent National Labor Union,
Issue: Whether or Not E.O. 546 is Inc.
Issue: What is the function of CIR as a special
Held: In Vigan Electric Light Co., Inc. vs. Public
Service Commission the Supreme Court said
that although the rule-making power and even Held: To begin with the issue before us is to
the power to fix rates- when such rules and/or realize the functions of the CIR. The CIR is a
rates are meant to apply to all enterprises of a special court whose functions are specifically
given kind throughout the Philippines-may stated in the law of its creation which is the
partake of a legislative character. Respondent Commonwealth Act No. 103). It is more an
Alcuaz no doubt contains all the attributes of a administrative board than a part of the
quasi-judicial adjudication. Foremost is the fact integrated judicial system of the nation. It is
that said order pertains exclusively to not intended to be a mere receptive organ of
petitioner and to no other the government. Unlike a court of justice which
is essentially passive, acting only when its
The respondent admits that the questioned jurisdiction is invoked and deciding only cases
order was issued pursuant to its quasi-judicial that are presented to it by the parties litigant,
functions. It, however, insists that notice and the function of the CIR, as will appear from
hearing are not necessary since the assailed perusal of its organic law is more active,
order is merely incidental to the entire affirmative and dynamic. It not only exercises
proceedings and, therefore, temporary in judicial or quasi-judicial functions in the
nature but the supreme court said that While determination of disputes between employers
respondents may fix a temporary rate pending and employees but its functions are far more
final determination of the application of comprehensive and extensive. It has
petitioner, such rate-fixing order, temporary jurisdiction over the entire Philippines, to
though it may be, is not exempt from the consider, investigate, decide, and settle any
statutory procedural requirements of notice question, matter controversy or disputes
and hearing arising between, and/ or affecting employers
and employees or laborers, and landlords and
The Supreme Court Said that it is clear that
tenants or farm-laborers, and regulates the
with regard to rate-fixing, respondent has no
relations between them, subject to, and in
authority to make such order without first
accordance with, the provisions of CA 103.
giving petitioner a hearing, whether the order
be temporary or permanent. In the Case at bar The CIR is free from rigidity of certain
the NTC didnt scheduled hearing nor it did give procedural requirements, but this not mean
any notice to the petitioner. that it can in justiciable cases coming before it,
entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental
and essential requirements of due process in
Ang Tibay vs. CIR, 69 Phil 635 trials and investigations of an administrative
character. There are cardinal primary rights
Facts: Ang Tibay was a manufacturer of rubber which must be respected even in proceedings
slippers. of this character:

There was a shortage of leather soles, and it (1) the right to a hearing, which includes the
was necessary to temporarily lay off members right to present ones cause and submit
of the National Labor Union. evidence in support thereof;
(2) The tribunal must consider the evidence Issue: Was there denial of due process against
presented; the respondent students.

(3) The decision must have something to

support itself;

(4) The evidence must be substantial; Held: There was no denial of due process,
more particularly procedural due process. Dean
(5) The decision must be based on the of the Ateneo Law School, notified and required
evidence presented at the hearing; or at least respondent students to submit their written
contained in the record and disclosed to the statement on the incident. Instead of filing a
parties affected; reply, respondent students requested through
(6) The tribunal or body or any of its judges their counsel, copies of the charges. The nature
must act on its own independent consideration and cause of the accusation were adequately
of the law and facts of the controversy, and not spelled out in petitioners' notices. Present is
simply accept the views of a subordinate; the twin elements of notice and hearing.

(7) The Board or body should, in all Respondent students argue that petitioners are
controversial questions, render its decision in not in a position to file the instant petition
such manner that the parties to the proceeding under Rule 65 considering that they failed to
can know the various Issue involved, and the file a motion for reconsideration first before the
reason for the decision rendered. trial court, thereby by passing the latter and
the Court of Appeals. It is accepted legal
The failure to grasp the fundamental issue doctrine that an exception to the doctrine of
involved is not entirely attributable to the exhaustion of remedies is when the case
parties adversely affected by the result. involves a question of law, as in this case,
Accordingly, the motion for a new trial should where the issue is whether or not respondent
be, and the same is hereby granted, and the students have been afforded procedural due
entire record of this case shall be remanded to process prior to their dismissal from Petitioner
the CIR, with instruction that it reopen the case University.
receive all such evidence as may be relevant,
and otherwise proceed in accordance with the
requirements set forth. Minimum standards to be satisfied in the
imposition of disciplinary sanctions in academic
institutions, such as petitioner university
herein, thus:
Ateneo de Manila University vs Judge
Ignacio Capulong
(1) the students must be informed in writing of
222 SCRA 644 Political Law Constitutional the nature and cause of any accusation against
Law Academic Freedom Power of School to them;
Dismiss Erring Students
(2) that they shall have the right to answer the
FACTS: On February 8, 9, and 10 of 1991, a
charges against them with the assistance of
fraternity in Ateneo Law School named Aquila
counsel, if desired:
Legis conducted its initiation rites upon
neophytes. Unfortunately, one neophyte died
as a result thereof and one was hospitalized (3) they shall be informed of the evidence
due to serious physical injuries. In a resolution against them
dated March 9, 1991, the Disciplinary Board
formed by Ateneo found seven students guilty (4) they shall have the right to adduce
of violating Rule 3 of the Rules on Discipline. Fr. evidence in their own behalf; and
Joaquin Bernas, then president of Ateneo, on
the basis of the findings, ordered the (5) the evidence must be duly considered by
expulsion of the seven students. However, on the investigating committee or official
May 17, 1991, Judge Ignacio Capulong of the designated by the school authorities to hear
Makati RTC, upon the students petition and decide the case.
for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus,
ordered Ateneo to reverse its decision and
reinstate the said students. G.R. No. 211362 Political Law
Constitutional Law Academic Freedom
FACTS: Aldrin Jeff Cudia was a member of the the Honor Code. Allegedly, Cudia lied in his
Philippine Military Academy (PMA) Siklab Diwa written appeal when he said his class was
Class of 2014. On November 14, 2013, Cudias dismissed late hence, as a result, he was late
class had a lesson examination in their for his next class.
Operations Research (OR) subject the schedule
of which was from 1:30pm to 3pm. The Honor Code is PMAs basis for the
minimum standard of behavior required of their
However, after he submitted his exam paper, cadets. Any violation thereof may be a ground
Cudia made a query to their OR teacher. Said to separate a cadet from PMA.
teacher, then asked Cudia to wait for her. Cudia
complied and as a result, he was late for his Cudia submitted an explanation to the HC.
next class (English). Later, the English teacher Thereafter, the HC, which is composed of nine
reported Cudia for being late. (9) cadets, conducted an investigation. After
two hearings and after the parties involved
In his explanation, Cudia averred that he was were heard and with their witnesses presented,
late because his OR class was dismissed a bit the HC reconvened and the members cast their
late. The tactical officer (TO) tasked to look vote. The initial vote was 8-1: 8 found Cudia
upon the matter concluded that Cudia lied guilty and 1 acquitted Cudia. Under PMA rules
when he said that their OR class was dismissed (Honor System), a dissenting vote means the
late because the OR teacher said she never acquittal of Cudia. However, they also have a
dismissed her class late. Thus, Cudia was practice of chambering where the members,
meted with demerits and touring hours particularly the dissenter, are made to explain
because of said infraction. their vote. This is to avoid the tyranny of the
minority. After the chambering, the dissenter
Cudia did not agree with the penalty hence he was convinced that his initial not guilty vote
asked the TO about it. Not content with the was improper, hence he changed the same and
explanation of the TO, Cudia said he will be the final vote became 9-0. Thus, Cudia was
appealing the penalty he incurred to the senior immediately placed inside PMAs holding
tactical officer (STO). The TO then asked Cudia center.
to write his appeal.
Cudia appealed to the HC chairman but his
In his appeal, Cudia stated that his being late appeal was denied. Eventually, the
was out of his control because his OR class was Superintendent of the PMA ordered the
dismissed at 3pm while his English class dismissal of Cudia from the PMA.
started at 3pm also. To that the TO replied: that
on record, and based on the interview with the Cudia and several members of his family then
teachers concerned, the OR teacher did not sent letters to various military officers
dismiss them (the class) beyond 3pm and the requesting for a re-investigation. It was their
English class started at 3:05pm, not 3pm; that claim that there were irregularities in the
besides, under PMA rules, once a student investigation done by the HC. As a result of
submitted his examination paper, he is such pleas, the case of Cudia was referred to
dismissed from said class and may be excused the Cadet Review and Appeals Board of PMA
to leave the classroom, hence, Cudia was in (CRAB).
fact dismissed well before 3pm; that it was a lie
for Cudia to state that the class was dismissed Meanwhile, Cudias family brought the case to
late because again, on that day in the OR class, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) where
each student was dismissed as they submit it was alleged that PMAs sham investigation
their examination, and were not dismissed as a violated Cudias rights to due process,
class; that if Cudia was ordered by the teacher education, and privacy of communication.
to stay, it was not because such transaction
Eventually, the CRAB ruled against Cudia. This
was initiated by the teacher, rather, it was
ruling was affirmed by the AFP Chief of Staff.
initiated by Cudia (because of his query to the
But on the other hand, the CHR found in favor
teacher), although there were at least two
of Cudia.
students with Cudia at that time querying the
teacher, the three of them cannot be PMA averred that CHRs findings are at best
considered a class; Cudia could just have recommendatory. Cudia filed a petition for
stated all that instead of saying that his class certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus before
was dismissed a bit late, hence he lied. The the Supreme Court. PMA opposed the said
STO sustained the decision of the TO. petition as it argued that the same is not
proper as a matter of policy and that the court
Later, the TO reported Cudia to the PMAs
should avoid interfering with military matters.
Honor Committee (HC) for allegedly violating
submitted for formal investigation, a new team
was assigned to conduct the hearing. During
ISSUES: 2. Whether or not the PMA can validly the formal investigation/hearing, he was
dismiss Cudia based on its findings. informed of the charge against him and given
the right to enter his plea. He had the chance
On the civil liberties of PMA cadets
to explain his side, confront the witnesses
One of the arguments raised by PMA is that against him, and present evidence in his
cadets, when they enrolled in the PMA, have behalf. After a thorough discussion of the HC
surrendered parts of their civil and political voting members, he was found to have violated
liberties. Hence, when they are disciplined and the Honor Code. Thereafter, the guilty verdict
punished by the PMA, said cadets cannot underwent the review process at the Academy
question the same, much less, question it in level from the OIC of the HC, to the SJA (Staff
the courts. in short, they cannot raise due Judge Advocate), to the Commandant of
process. Cadets, and to the PMA Superintendent. A
separate investigation was also conducted by
On this, the SC held that such argument is the HTG (Headquarters Tactics Group). Then,
wrong. It is true that a PMA cadet, by enrolling upon the directive of the AFP-GHQ (AFP-
at PMA, must be prepared to subordinate his General Headquarters) to reinvestigate the
private interests for the proper functioning of case, a review was conducted by the CRAB.
the educational institution he attends to, one Further, a Fact-Finding Board/Investigation
that is with a greater degree than a student at Body composed of the CRAB members and the
a civilian public school. However, a cadet PMA senior officers was constituted to conduct
facing dismissal from PMA, whose private a deliberate investigation of the case. Finally,
interests are at stake (life, liberty, property) he had the opportunity to appeal to the
which includes his honor, good name, and President. Sadly for him, all had issued
integrity, is entitled to due process. No one can unfavorable rulings. And there is no reason for
be deprived of such without due process of law the SC to disturb the findings of facts by these
and the PMA, even as a military academy, is bodies.
not exempt from such strictures. Thus, when
Cudia questioned in court the manner upon
which he was dismissed from the PMA, such
Academic freedom of the PMA
controversy may be inquired upon by the
courts. Cudia would argue that there is no law
providing that a guilty finding by the HC may
(Authors note: PMA, in essence, raised that
be used by the PMA to dismiss or recommend
due process, as contemplated by the
the dismissal of a cadet from the PMA; that
Constitution, is not needed in dismissing a
Honor Code violation is not among those listed
cadet yet, as can be seen in the below
as justifications for the attrition of cadets
discussion, PMA presented evidence that due
considering that the Honor Code and the Honor
process was, in fact, complied with.)
System (manner which PMA conducts
II. Yes. It is within PMAs right to academic investigation of Honor Code violations) do not
freedom to decide whether or not a cadet is state that a guilty cadet is automatically
still worthy to be part of the institution. Thus, terminated or dismissed from service.
PMA did not act with grave abuse of discretion
Such argument is not valid. Even without
when it dismissed Cudia. In fact, Cudia was
express provision of a law, the PMA has
accorded due process. In this case, the
regulatory authority to administratively dismiss
investigation of Cudias Honor Code violation
erring cadets. Further, there is a law
followed the prescribed procedure and existing
(Commonwealth Act No. 1) authorizing the
practices in the PMA. He was notified of the
President to dismiss cadets. Such power by the
Honor Report submitted by his TO. He was then
President may be delegated to the PMA
given the opportunity to explain the report
Superintendent, who may exercise direct
against him. He was informed about his options
supervision and control over the cadets.
and the entire process that the case would
undergo. The preliminary investigation Further, as stated earlier, such power by the
immediately followed after he replied and PMA is well within its academic freedom.
submitted a written explanation. Upon its Academic freedom or, to be precise, the
completion, the investigating team submitted a institutional autonomy of universities and
written report together with its institutions of higher learning has been
recommendation to the HC Chairman. The HC enshrined in the Constitution.
thereafter reviewed the findings and
recommendations. When the honor case was
violation of Sec. 11 Act No. 4221 which
provides that the act of Legislature granting
The essential freedoms of academic freedom provincial boards the power to provide a
on the part of schools are as follows; system of probation to convicted person.
Nowhere in the law is stated that the law is
a. the right to determine who may teach;
applicable to a city like Manila because it is
b. the right to determine what may be taught; only indicated therein that only provinces are
covered. And even if Manila is covered by the
c. the right to determine how it shall be taught; law it is unconstitutional because Sec 1 Art 3 of
the Constitution provides equal protection of
d. the right to determine who may be admitted laws for the reason that its applicability is not
to study. uniform throughout the islands. The said law
provides absolute discretion to provincial
boards and this also constitutes undue
The Honor Code is just but one way for the PMA delegation of power because providing
to exercise its academic freedom. If it probation, in effect, is granting freedom, as in
determines that a cadet violates it, then it has pardon.
the right to dismiss said cadet. In this case,
based on its findings, Cudia lied which is a
violation of the Honor Code. ISSUE: contends that Act No. 4221 of the
Philippine Legislature providing for a system of
But Cudias lie is not even that big; is dismissal probation for persons eighteen years of age or
from the PMA really warranted? over who are convicted of crime, is
The PMA Honor Code does not distinguish unconstitutional because it is violative of
between a big lie and a minor lie. It punishes section 1, subsection (1), Article III, of the
any form of lying. It does not have a gradation Constitution of the Philippines
of penalties. In fact, it is the discretion of the
PMA as to what penalty may be imposed. When
Cudia enrolled at PMA, he agreed to abide by Held: Act No. 4221 is hereby declared
the Honor Code and the Honor System. Thus, unconstitutional and void and the writ of
while the punishment may be severe, it is prohibition is, accordingly, granted. Without
nevertheless reasonable and not arbitrary, and, any pronouncement regarding costs. So
therefore, not in violation of due process -also ordered.
considering that Cudia, as a cadet, must have
known all of these. Ratio: The constitutionality of Act No. 4221 is
challenged on three principal grounds: (1) That
said Act encroaches upon the pardoning power
of the Executive; (2) that it constitutes an
You are always a student, never a undue delegation of legislative power; and (3)
master. You have to KEEP MOVING that it denies the equal protection of the laws.
FORWARD. -Conrad Hall
Under the Probation Act, the probationer's
case is not terminated by the mere fact that he
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS is placed on probation. Section 4 of the Act
provides that the probation may be definitely
PEOPLE v. VERA terminated and the probationer finally
discharged from supervision only after the
FACTS: Unjieng was convicted by the trial period of probation shall have been terminated
court in Manila. He filed for reconsideration and the probation officer shall have submitted
which was elevated to the SC and the SC a report, and the court shall have found that
remanded the appeal to the lower court for a the probationer has complied with the
new trial. While awaiting new trial, he appealed conditions of probation. The probationer, then,
for probation alleging that the he is innocent of during the period of probation, remains in legal
the crime he was convicted of. Judge Tuason of custody subject to the control of the
the Manila CFI directed the appeal to the probation officer and of the court; and, he may
Insular Probation Office. The IPO denied the be rearrested upon the non-fulfillment of the
application. However, Judge Vera upon another conditions of probation and, when rearrested,
request by petitioner allowed the petition to be may be committed to prison to serve the
set for hearing. The City Prosecutor countered sentence originally imposed upon him.
alleging that Vera has no power to place Cu
Unjieng under probation because it is in
A 'pardon' is an act of grace, proceeding a specified class if it applies to all persons
from the power intrusted with the execution of within such class and reasonable grounds exist
the laws which exempts the individual on for making a distinction between those who fall
whom it is bestowed from the punishment the within such class and those who do not. Aliens
law inflicts for a crime he has committed. It is a are under no special constitutional protection
remission of guilt or a forgiveness of the which forbids a classification otherwise justified
offense. 'Commutation' is a remission of a part simply because the limitation of the class falls
of the punishment; a substitution of a less along the lines of nationality. The difference in
penalty for the one originally imposed. A status between citizens and aliens constitute a
'reprieve' or 'respite' is the withholding of a basis for reasonable classification in the
sentence for an interval of time, a exercise of police power.
postponement of execution, a temporary
suspension of execution.

We are of the opinion that section 11 of the Villegas vs. Hui Chiong Tsai Pao Ho
Probation Act is unconstitutional and void
FACTS: This case involves an ordinance
because it is also repugnant to the equal-
prohibiting aliens from being employed or
protection clause of our Constitution. Section
engage or participate in any position or
11 of the Probation Act being unconstitutional
occupation or business enumerated therein,
and void for the reasons already stated, the
whether permanent, temporary or casual,
next inquiry is whether or not the entire Act
without first securing an employment permit
should be avoided. It is also contended that the
from the Mayor of Manila and paying the
Probation Act violates the provision of our Bill
permit fee of P50.00. Private respondent Hiu
of Rights which prohibits the denial to any
Chiong Tsai Pao Ho who was employed in
person of the equal protection of the laws. We
Manila, filed a petition to stop the enforcement
conclude that section 11 of Act No. 4221
of such ordinance as well as to declare the
constitutes an improper and unlawful
same null and void. Trial court rendered
delegation of legislative authority to the
judgment in favor of the petitioner, hence this
provincial boards and is, for this reason,
unconstitutional and void.

ISSUE: WON said Ordinance violates due

process of law and equal protection rule of the
101 PHIL 115 Constitution.

FACTS: Petitioner, also in behalf of other alien

residents corporations and partnerships,
HELD: Yes. The Ordinance The ordinance in
brought this action to obtain a judicial
question violates the due process of law and
declaration that RA 1180 is unconstitutional.
equal protection rule of the Constitution.
Petitioner contends, among others, that said
Requiring a person before he can be employed
act violate the equal protection of laws and
to get a permit from the City Mayor who may
that it violates the treaty of the Philippines with
withhold or refuse it at his will is tantamount to
China. Solicitor General contends that the act
denying him the basic right of the people in the
was a valid exercise of the police power and
Philippines to engage in a means of livelihood.
that not a single treaty was infringed by said
While it is true that the Philippines as a State is
not obliged to admit aliens within its territory,
once an alien is admitted, he cannot be
deprived of life without due process of law. This
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 1180 violates the guarantee includes the means of livelihood.
equal protection of laws The shelter of protection under the due process
and equal protection clause is given to all
persons, both aliens and citizens.
HELD: The equal protection of the law clause is
against undue favor and individual or class
privilege, as well as hostile discrimination on Patricio Dumlao vs Commission on
oppression of inequality. The real question at Elections
hand is whether or not the exclusion in the
future aliens for the retail trade unreasonable. 95 SCRA 392 Political Law Constitutional
The equal protection clause is not infringed by Law Equal Protection Eligibility to Office
after Being 65
Judicial Review; Requisites thereof No violation of equal protection. It is
subject to rational classification. If the
groupings are based on reasonable and real
differentiations, one class can be treated and
FACTS: Patricio Dumlao was the former
regulated differently from the others. Here,
governor of Nueva Vizcaya. He has already
persons over 65 are classified differently from
retired from his office and he has been
younger employees to promote emergence of
receiving retirement benefits therefrom.
younger blood. Persons similarly situated are
In 1980, he filed for reelection to the same similarly treated. It does not forbid all legal
office. Meanwhile, Batas Pambansa Blg. 52 classification, what is prohibited is a
was enacted. This law provides, among others, classification which is arbitrary and
that retirees from public office like Dumlao are unreasonable. That constitutional guarantee is
disqualified to run for office. Dumlao assailed not violated by a reasonable classification is
the law averring that it is class legislation germane to the purpose of the law and applies
hence unconstitutional. In general, Dumlao to all those belonging to the same class.
invoked equal protection in the eye of the law.

His petition was joined by Atty. Romeo Igot and

** Philippine Asso. of Service Exporters v
Alfredo Salapantan, Jr. These two however have
Drilon 163 SCRA 386 (1988)
different issues. The suits of Igot and
Salapantan are more of a taxpayers suit Facts: Petitioner, Phil association of Service
assailing the other provisions of BP 52 Exporters, Inc., is engaged principally in the
regarding the term of office of the elected recruitment of Filipino workers, male and
officials, the length of the campaign, and the female of overseas employment. It challenges
provision which bars persons charged for the constitutional validity of Dept. Order No. 1
crimes from running for public office as well as (1998) of DOLE entitled Guidelines Governing
the provision that provides that the mere filing the Temporary Suspension of Deployment of
of complaints against them after preliminary Filipino Domestic and Household Workers. It
investigation would already disqualify them claims that such order is a discrimination
from office. against males and females. The Order does not
apply to all Filipino workers but only to
domestic helpers and females with similar
ISSUE: Whether or not Dumlao, Igot, and skills, and that it is in violation of the right to
Salapantan have a cause of action. travel, it also being an invalid exercise of the
lawmaking power. Further, PASEI invokes Sec 3
of Art 13 of the Constitution, providing for
worker participation in policy and decision-
HELD: NO. The Supreme Court pointed out the making processes affecting their rights and
procedural lapses of this case for the latter benefits as may be provided by law. Thereafter
should have never been merged. Dumlao's the Solicitor General on behalf of DOLE
issue is different from Igot and Salapantan. submitting to the validity of the challenged
They have different issues. Further, this case guidelines involving the police power of the
does not meet all requisites to be eligible for State and informed the court that the
judicial review, namely: (1) the existence of an respondent have lifted the deployment ban in
appropriate case; (2) an interest personal and some states where there exists bilateral
substantial by the party raising the agreement with the Philippines and existing
constitutional question; (3) the plea that the mechanism providing for sufficient safeguards
function be exercised at the earliest to ensure the welfare and protection of the
opportunity; and (4) the necessity that the Filipino workers.
constitutional question be passed upon in order
to decide the case.

In this case, only the 3rd requisite was met. Issue: Whether or not there has been a valid
classification in the challenged Department
The SC ruled however that the provision Order No. 1.
barring persons charged for crimes may not
run for public office and that the filing of
complaints against them after preliminary
investigation would already disqualify them Held: SC in dismissing the petition ruled that
from office as null and void. there has been valid classification, the Filipino
female domestics working abroad were in a
class by themselves, because of the special
risk to which their class was exposed. There is accused from office until the case is
no question that Order No.1 applies only to terminated. Such case shall be subject to
female contract workers but it does not thereby continuous trial and shall be terminated within
make an undue discrimination between sexes. ninety (90) days from arraignment of the
It is well settled hat equality before the law accused. Himagan assailed the suspension
under the constitution does not import a averring that Sec 42 of PD 807 of the Civil
perfect identity of rights among all men and Service Decree, that his suspension should be
women. It admits of classification, provided limited to ninety (90) days. He claims that an
that: imposition of preventive suspension of over 90
days is contrary to the Civil Service Law and
would be a violation of his constitutional right
to equal protection of laws.
1. Such classification rests on substantial
distinctions ISSUE: Whether or not Sec 47, RA 6975
violates equal protection guaranteed by the
2. That they are germane to the purpose of the

3. They are not confined to existing conditions

HELD: No. The reason why members of the
4. They apply equally to al members of the
PNP are treated differently from the other
same class
classes of persons charged criminally or
administratively insofar as the application of
the rule on preventive suspension is concerned
In the case at bar, the classifications made, is that policemen carry weapons and the badge
rest on substantial distinctions. of the law which can be used to harass or
intimidate witnesses against them, as
Dept. Order No. 1 does not impair the right to succinctly brought out in the legislative
travel. The consequence of the deployment discussions. If a suspended policeman
ban has on the right to travel does not impair criminally charged with a serious offense is
the right, as the right to travel is subjects reinstated to his post while his case is pending,
among other things, to the requirements of his victim and the witnesses against him are
public safety as may be provided by law. obviously exposed to constant threat and thus
Deployment ban of female domestic helper is a easily cowed to silence by the mere fact that
valid exercise of police power. Police power has the accused is in uniform and armed. The
been defined as the state authority to enact imposition of preventive suspension for over 90
legislation that may interfere with personal days under Sec 47 of RA 6975 does not violate
liberty or property in order to promote general the suspended policemans constitutional right
welfare. Neither is there merit in the contention to equal protection of the laws.
that Department Order No. 1 constitutes an
invalid exercise of legislative power as the
labor code vest the DOLE with rule making
powers. QUINTO versus COMELEC (G.R. No.

Facts: Petitioners Eleazar P. Quinto and Gerino

A. Tolentino, Jr. filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition against the COMELEC for issuing a
Himagan vs. People resolution declaring appointive officials who
filed their certificate of candidacy as ipso facto
FACTS: Himagan is a policeman assigned in resigned from their government offices
Camp Catititgan, Davao City. He was charged because at such time they are not yet treated
for the murder of and attempted murder. by the law as candidates. They should be
Pursuant to Sec 47 of RA 6975, Himagan was considered resigned from their respective
placed into suspension pending the murder offices only at the start of the campaign period
case. The law provides that Upon the filing of when they are, by law, already considered
a complaint or information sufficient in form candidates.
and substance against a member of the PNP for
grave felonies where the penalty imposed by In this defense, the COMELEC avers that it only
law is six (6) years and one (1) day or more, copied the provision from Sec. 13 of R.A. 9369.
the court shall immediately suspend the
Issue: Whether or not the said COMELEC
resolution was valid.

Held: NO. In the Farias case, the petitioners

challenged Sec. 14 of RA. 9006 repealing Sec.
66 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) for
giving undue benefit to elective officials in
comparison with appointive officials.
Incidentally, the Court upheld the substantial
distinctions between the two and pronounced
that there was no violation of the equal
protection clause. However, in the present
case, the Court held that the discussion on the
equal protection clause was an obiter dictum
since the issue raised therein was against the
repealing clause. It didnt squarely challenge
Sec. 66.

Sec. 13 of RA. 9369 unduly discriminated

appointive and elective officials. Applying the 4
requisites of a valid classification, the proviso
does not comply with the second requirement
that it must be germane to the purpose of the

The obvious reason for the challenged

provision is to prevent the use of a
governmental position to promote ones
candidacy, or even to wield a dangerous or
coercive influence of the electorate. The
measure is further aimed at promoting the
efficiency, integrity, and discipline of the public
service by eliminating the danger that the
discharge of official duty would be motivated
by political considerations rather than the
welfare of the public. The restriction is also
justified by the proposition that the entry of
civil servants to the electorate arena, while still
in office, could result in neglect or inefficiency
in the performance of duty because they would
be attending to their campaign rather than to
their office work.