G.R. No.

L-68159 March 18, 1985 135 SCRA 431

HOMOBONO ADAZA, petitioner ,

vs.

FERNANDO PACANA, JR.,respondent.

Adaza v. Pacana

NATURE OF ACTION:

Petition for prohibition with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or restraining order

FACTS:

Adaza is the governor of Misamis Oriental and Pacana is the vice-governor. Their respective term of
office expires on March 3, 1986. Both parties ran in the Batasang Pambansa (BP) elections in 1984 and
respondent lost to petitioner. On July 23, 1984, Pacana took his oath of office as the governor. Petitioner
has brought this petition to exclude respondent therefrom, claiming to be the lawful occupant of the
position.

ISSUE:

1) Whether or not a provincial governor who was elected as Mababatas Pambansa (MP) can exercise the
functions of both simultaneously;

and

2) whether or not a vice-governor who ran for the position of MP but lost, can continue serving as vice
governor and subsequently succeed to the office of governor if said office is vacated.

RULING:

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby dismissed. No costs.

HELD:

Section 10, Article VIII of the Constitution is clear and unambiguous. A member of the BP may not hold
any other office in the government. A public office is a public trust. A holder thereof is subject to
regulations and conditions as the law may impose and he cannot complain of any restrictions on his
holding of more than one office. The contention that Pacana, as a mere private citizen, runs afoul of BP
Blg. 697 which provides that governors, or members of sangguniang or barangay officials, upon filing a
certificate of candidacy be considered on forced leave of absence from office. When respondent
reassumed the position of vice-governor after the BP elections, he was acting within the law. Thus, the
instant petition is denied.
G.R. No. L-45459 March 13, 1937 64 PHIL 201
GREGORIO AGLIPAY, petitioner,
vs.
JUAN RUIZ, respondent.
Vicente Sotto for petitioner.
Office of the Solicitor-General Tuason for respondent.
Aglipay v. Ruiz

NATURE OF ACTION:

The petitioner, Supreme Head of the Philippine Independent Church, seeks the issuance from this court of a writ of
prohibition to prevent the respondent Director of Posts from issuing and selling postage stamps commemorative
of the Thirty-third International Eucharistic Congress.

Facts:

In May 1936, the Director of Posts announced in the dailies of Manila that he would order the issuance of postage
stamps commemorating the celebration in the City of Manila of the 33rd International Eucharistic Congress,
organized by the Roman Catholic Church. The petitioner, Mons. Gregorio Aglipay, Supreme Head of the Philippine
Independent Church, in the fulfillment of what he considers to be a civic duty, requested Vicente Sotto, Esq.,
member of the Philippine Bar, to denounce the matter to the President of the Philippines. In spite of the protest of
the petitioners attorney, the Director of Posts publicly announced having sent to the United States the designs of
the postage for printing. The said stamps were actually issued and sold though the greater part thereof remained
unsold. The further sale of the stamps was sought to be prevented by the petitioner.

Issue:

Whether the issuance of the postage stamps was in violation of the Constitution under freedom to religion

RULING:

The petition for a writ of prohibition is hereby denied, without pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

Held:

What is guaranteed by our Constitution is religious freedom and not mere religious toleration. It is however not an
inhibition of profound reverence for religion and is not a denial of its influence in human affairs. Religion as a
profession of faith to an active power that binds and elevates man to his Creator is recognized. And in so far as it
instills into the minds the purest principles of morality, its influence is deeply felt and highly appreciated. The
phrase in Act No. 4052 advantageous to the government does not authorize violation of the Constitution. The
issuance of the stamps was not inspired by any feeling to favor a particular church or religious denomination. They
were not sold for the benefit of the Roman Catholic Church. The postage stamps, instead of showing a Catholic
chalice as originally planned, contains a map of the Philippines and the location of Manila, with the words Seat
XXXIII International Eucharistic Congress. The focus of the stamps was not the Eucharistic Congress but the city of
Manila, being the seat of that congress. This was to to advertise the Philippines and attract more tourists, the
officials merely took advantage of an event considered of international importance. Although such issuance and
sale may be inseparably linked with the Roman Catholic Church, any benefit and propaganda incidentally resulting
from it was not the aim or purpose of the Government.
G.R. No. L-6 November 29, 1945 75 PHIL 749

ANICETO ALCANTARA, petitioner,

vs.

DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, respondent.

Buenaventura B. Martinez for petitioner.

Office of the Solicitor General Taada for respondent.

ALCANTARA v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

NATURE OF ACTION:

This is a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus and for the release of the petitioner on the
ground that the latter is unlawfully imprisoned and restrained of his liberty by the respondent Director
of Prison in the provincial jail at Vigan, Ilocos Sur

FACTS:

Petitioner Aniceto Alcantara was convicted of the crime of illegal discharge of firearms with less serious
physical injuries. The Court of Appeals modified the sentence to an indeterminate penalty from arresto
mayor to prison correccional. Petitioner now questions the validity of the decision on the sole ground
that said court was only a creation of the so-called Republic of the Philippines during Japanese military
occupation, thus, a petition for the issuance of writ of habeas corpus from petitioner.

ISSUE:

Is the judgment of Court of Appeals good and valid?

RULING:

In view of the foregoing, the petitioner for the writ of habeas corpus is denied.

HELD:

Judgments of such court were good and valid and remain good and valid for the sentence which
petitioner is now serving has no political complexion. A penal sentence is said to be of a political
complexion when it penalizes a new act not defined in the municipal laws, or acts already penalized by
the latter as a crime against the legitimate government but taken out of territorial law and penalized as
new offenses committed against the belligerent occupant which is necessary for the control of the
occupied territory and the protection of the army of the occupier. Such is the case at hand, the petition
for writ of habeas corpus is denied.