POLITICAL LAW CASES PENNED BY JUSTICE LUCAS
Borbon, 745 SCRA
BERSAMIN
1. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved. The presumption of
innocence is rooted in the guarantee of due process, and is
safeguarded by the constitutional right to be released on bail, and
further binds the court to wait until after trial to impose any
punishment on the accused.
This national commitment to uphold the fundamental human rights as
well as value the worth and dignity of every person has authorized the
grant of bail not only to those charged in criminal proceedings but also
to extraditees upon a clear and convincing showing:
1) that the detainee will not be a flight risk or a danger to the
community; and
2) that there exist special, humanitarian and compelling
circumstances.
In our view, his social and political standing and his having
immediately surrendered to the authorities upon his being charged in
court indicate that the risk of his flight or escape from this jurisdiction
is highly unlikely. His personal disposition from the onset of his
indictment for plunder, formal or otherwise, has demonstrated his
utter respect for the legal processes of this country. We also do not
ignore that at an earlier time many years ago when he had been
charged with rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder, he
already evinced a similar personal disposition of respect for the legal
processes, and was granted bail during the pendency of his trial
because he was not seen as a flight risk. With his solid reputation in
both his public and his private lives, his long years of public service,
and historys judgment of him being at stake, he should be granted bail.
The currently fragile state of Enriles health presents another
compelling justification for his admission to bail, but which the
Sandiganbayan did not recognize. Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan
(Third Division), 767 SCRA 282, G.R. No. 213847 August 18,
2015
2. It is not disputed that the constitutional right to due process of
law cannot be denied to any accused. The Constitution has
expressly ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty
or property without due process of law. An essential part of the
right is to be afforded a just and fair trial before his conviction for
any crime. Any violation of the right cannot be condoned, for the
impartiality of the judge who sits on and hears a case, and decides
it is an indispensable requisite of procedural due process. Lai vs.
People, 761 SCRA 156, G.R. No. 175999 July 1, 2015
3. As provided in their respective charters, PHILHEALTH and
Employees Compensation Commission (ECC) have the status of a
government corporation and are deemed attached to the
Department of Health and the Department of Labor, respectively.
On the other hand, the GSIS and Home Dvlp Mutual Fund (HDMF)
fall under the Office of the President. The corporate powers of the
Gov Service Insurance System (GSIS), PHILHEALTH, ECC and
HDMF are exercised through their governing Boards, members of
which are all appointed by the President of the Philippines.
Undoubtedly, the GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF and the
members of their respective governing Boards are under the control
of the President. As such, the CSC Chairman cannot be a member of
a government entity that is under the control of the President
without impairing the independence vested in the CSC by the 1987
Constitution. Funa vs. Duque III, 742 SCRA 166, G.R. No.
191672 November 25, 2014
4. The putting up of the access fence on the petitioners property was in
the valid exercise of police power, assailable only upon proof that
such putting up unduly violated constitutional limitations like due
process and equal protection of the law. In Mirasol v. Department
of Public Works and Highways, 490 SCRA 318 (2006), the Court
has further noted that: A toll way is not an ordinary road. As a
facility designed to promote the fastest access to certain
destinations, its use, operation, and maintenance require close
regulation. Public interest and safety require the imposition of
certain restrictions on toll ways that do not apply to ordinary roads.
As a special kind of road, it is but reasonable that not all forms of
transport could use it. Hermano Oil Manufacturing & Sugar
Corporation vs. Toll Regulatory Board, 742 SCRA 395, G.R.
No. 167290 November 26, 2014
5. Here, NAPOCOR seeks to discontinue the expropriation proceedings
on the ground that the transmission lines constructed on the
respondents property had already been retired. Considering that the
Court has consistently upheld the primordial importance of public
use in expropriation proceedings, NAPOCORs reliance on
Metropolitan Water District v. De los Angeles, 55 Phil. 776 (1931 ),
was apt and correct. Verily, the retirement of the transmission lines
necessarily stripped the expropriation proceedings of the element of
public use. To continue with the expropriation proceedings despite
the definite cessation of the public purpose of the project would
result in the rendition of an invalid judgment in favor of the
expropriator due to the absence of the essential element of public
use. Republic vs. Heirs of Saturnino Q.
40, G.R. No. 165354 January 12, 2015
6. It bears reminding that pursuant to Article VI, Section 29(1) of the
1987 Constitution, no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except
in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. Hence, the GAA
should be purposeful, deliberate, and precise in its contents and
stipulations. Also, the COA was correct when it held that the
provisions of the GAA were not self-executory. This meant that the
execution of the GAA was still subject to a program of expenditure to
be approved by the President, and such approved program of
expenditure was the basis for the release of funds.
For that matter, Section 34, Chapter 5, Book VI of the Administrative
Code (Executive Order No. 292) states that
Section 34. Program of Expenditure.The Secretary of Budget shall
recommend to the President the years program of expenditure for
each agency of the government on the basis of authorized
appropriations. The approved expenditure program shall constitute the
basis for fund release during the fiscal period, subject to such policies,
rules and regulations as may be approved by the President. Technical
Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) vs.
Commission on Audit, 750 SCRA 247, G.R. No. 196418
February 10, 2015
7. An ordinance is required in order to reclassify agricultural lands,
and such may only be passed after the conduct of public hearings.
Holy Trinity Realty & Development Corporation vs. Dela
Cruz, 739 SCRA 229, G.R. No. 200454 October 22, 2014
8. DAP is unconstitutional. Araullo vs. Aquino III, 728 SCRA 1,
G.R. No. 209569 July 1, 2014
9. There is double taxation when the same taxpayer is taxed twice
when he should be taxed only once for the same purpose by the same
taxing authority within the same jurisdiction during the same taxing
period, and the taxes are of the same kind or character. Double
taxation is obnoxious. Nursery Care Corporation vs. Acevedo,
731 SCRA 280, G.R. No. 180651 July 30, 2014
10. The Constitution has entrusted to the Executive Department
the conduct of foreign relations for the Philippines. Whether or not
to espouse petitioners claim against the Government of Japan is left
to the exclusive determination and judgment of the Executive
Department. The Court cannot interfere with or question the
wisdom of the conduct of foreign relations by the Executive
Department. Accordingly, we cannot direct the Executive
Department, either by writ of certiorari or injunction, to conduct our
foreign relations with Japan in a certain manner. Vinuya vs.
Romulo, 732 SCRA 595, G.R. No. 162230 August 12, 2014
11. An employee may be reassigned from one organizational unit
to another in the same agency: Provided, That such reassignment
shall not involve a reduction in rank, status or salary.
The foregoing definition of reassignment has been adopted by the CSC
in Section 10 of Rule VII (Other Personnel Action) of the Omnibus
Rules Implementing Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987
(Omnibus Rules), declaring that a reassignment is the movement of
an employee from one organizational unit to another in the same
department or agency which does not involve a reduction in rank,
status or salary and does not require the issuance of an appointment.
Rule III of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40, Series of 1998 (Revised
Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Personnel Actions)
includes reassignment in the enumeration of personnel movements
that do not require the issuance of a new appointment. Ejera vs.
Merto, 714 SCRA 397, G.R. No. 163109 January 22, 2014
12. Misconduct is intentional wrongdoing or deliberate
violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior. To constitute an
administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected
with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public
officer.
In grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, the
elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant
disregard of an established rule must be manifest. In accordance with
Section 46 of Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of
1987 (Executive Order No. 292), misconduct is among the grounds for
disciplinary action, but no officer or employee in the Civil Service shall
be suspended or dismissed except for cause as provided by law and
after due process. It is cogent to mention that the Revised Uniform
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, which governs the
conduct of disciplinary and non-disciplinary proceedings in
administrative cases, classifies grave misconduct as a grave
administrative offense. Ganzon vs. Arlos, 708 SCRA 115, G.R. No.
Page1
174321 October 22, 2013
13. The observance of fairness in the conduct of any investigation is at
the very heart of procedural due process. The essence of due
process is to be heard, and, as applied to administrative
proceedings, this means a fair and reasonable opportunity to
explain ones side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of
 the action or ruling complained of. Administrative due process
cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial
sense, for in the former a formal or trial-type hearing is not always
necessary, and technical rules of procedure are not strictly
applied. Ledesma v. Court of Appeals, 541 SCRA 444 (2007),
elaborates on the well-established meaning of due process in
administrative proceedings in this wise: x x x Due process, as a
constitutional precept, does not always and in all situations
require a trial-type proceeding. Due process is satisfied when a
person is notified of the charge against him and given an
opportunity to explain or defend himself. In administrative
proceedings, the filing of charges and giving reasonable
opportunity for the person so charged to answer the accusations
against him constitute the minimum requirements of due process.
The essence of due process is simply to be heard, or as applied to
administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain ones side,
or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of. Vivo vs. Philippine Amusement and
Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), 709 SCRA 276, G.R. No.
187854 November 12, 2013
14. That the Constitutional Commission never intended to include
lands used for raising livestock and poultry, and commercial,
industrial and residential lands within the coverage of the
Agrarian Reform Program of the Government is already settled.
In Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian
Reform, 192 SCRA 51 (1990), the Court pointed this out: The
transcripts of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission
of 1986 on the meaning of the word agricultural clearly show
that it was never the intention of the framers of the Constitution
to include livestock and poultry industry in the coverage of the
constitutionally-mandated agrarian reform program of the
Government.
A lot inside the poblacion should be presumed residential, or
commercial, or non-agricultural unless there is a clearly preponderant
evidence to show that it is agricultural. Department of Agrarian
Reform vs. Berenguer, 614 SCRA 499, G.R. No. 154094
March 9, 2010
15. TEST OF VALID ORDINANCE
The tests of a valid ordinance are well established. A long line of
decisions has held that for an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be
a) within the corporate powers of the local government unit to enact
and
b) must be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law,
c) it must also conform to the following substantive requirements:
(CUPRUG)
1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute;
2) must not be unfair or oppressive;
3) must not be partial or discriminatory;
4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade;
5) must be general and consistent with public policy; and
6) must not be unreasonable. Legaspi vs. City of Cebu,
711 SCRA 771, G.R. No. 159692 December 10,
2013
16. POWER OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
The power of the Office of the Ombudsman to investigate extends to all
kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance, and non-feasance that have been
committed during his tenure of office by any officer or employee of
the Government, or of any subdivision, agency or instrumentality
thereof, including GOCCs.
The Office of the Ombudsman also has the power to act on all
complaints relating, but not limited, to acts or omissions that
1) are contrary to law or regulation;
2) are unreasonable, unfair, oppressive or discriminatory;
3) are inconsistent with the general course of an agencys functions,
though in accordance with law;
4) proceed from a mistake of law or an arbitrary ascertainment of
facts;
5) are in the exercise of discretionary powers but for an improper
purpose; or
6) are otherwise irregular, immoral or devoid of justification.
At the same time, the Office of the Ombudsman, in the exercise of its
administrative disciplinary authority, can impose the penalty of
removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution of a
public officer or employee found to be at fault. (RA 6770). Office of
the Ombudsman vs. De Leon, 692 SCRA 27, G.R. No. 154083
February 27, 2013
17. The doctrine of qualified political agency could not be
extended to the acts of the Board of Directors of Trade and
Investment Development Corporation of the Philippines
(TIDCORP) despite some of its members being themselves the
appointees of the President to the Cabinet. Under Section 10 of
PD 1080, as further amended by Section 6 of RA 8494, the five
ex officio members were the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of
Trade and Industry, the Governor of the BSP, the Director-
General of the NEDA, and the Chairman of the Philippine
Overseas Construction Board, while the four other members of
the Board were the three from the private sector (at least one of
whom should come from the export community), who were
elected by the ex officio members of the Board for a term of not
more than two consecutive years, and the President of TIDCORP
who was concurrently the Vice-Chairman of the Board. Such
Cabinet members sat on the Board of Directors of TIDCORP ex
officio, or by reason of their office or function, not because of their
direct appointment to the Board by the President. Evidently, it
was the law, not the President, that sat them in the Board.
Manalang-Demigillo vs. Trade and Investment
Development Corporation of the Philippines
(TIDCORP), 692 SCRA 359, G.R. No. 168613 March 5,
2013
18. Consistent with the principle of separation of powers enshrined in
the Constitution, the Court deems it a sound judicial policy not to
interfere in the conduct of preliminary investigations, and to allow
the Executive Department, through the Department of Justice,
exclusively to determine what constitutes sufficient evidence to
establish probable cause for the prosecution of supposed
offenders.
Exception: By way of exception, however, judicial review may be
allowed where it is clearly established that the public prosecutor
committed grave abuse of discretion, that is, when he has exercised his
discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or despotic manner
by reason of passion or personal hostility, patent and gross enough as
to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal to perform
a duty enjoined by law. Ampatuan, Jr. vs. De Lima, 695 SCRA
159, G.R. No. 197291 April 3, 2013
19. The picture images of the ballots are electronic documents that
are regarded as the equivalents of the original official ballots
themselves. But this juridical reality does not authorize the courts,
the COMELEC, and the Electoral Tribunals to quickly and
unilaterally resort to the printouts of the picture images of the
ballots in the proceedings had before them without notice to the
parties. Despite the equal probative weight accorded to the official
ballots and the printouts of their picture images, the rules for the
revision of ballots adopted for their respective proceedings still
consider the official ballots to be the primary or best evidence of
the voters will. In that regard, the picture images of the ballots
are to be used only when it is first shown that the official ballots
are lost or their integrity has been compromised. Maliksi vs.
Commission on Elections, 696 SCRA 272, G.R. No.
203302 April 11, 2013
20. Clearly, the primary functions of the Office of the Solicitor
General are not related or necessary to the primary functions of
the Department of Justice. Considering that the nature and duties
of the two offices are such as to render it improper, from
considerations of public policy, for one person to retain both, an
incompatibility between the offices exists, further warranting the
declaration of Agras designation as the Acting Secretary of
Justice, concurrently with his designation as the Acting Solicitor
General, to be void for being in violation of the express provisions
of the Constitution. Funa vs. Agra, 691 SCRA 196, G.R. No.
191644 February 19, 2013
21. Indeed, an appropriation by Congress was required before the
judgment that rendered the UP liable for moral and actual
damages (including attorneys fees) would be satisfied considering
that such monetary liabilities were not covered by the
appropriations earmarked for the said project. The Constitution
strictly mandated that no money shall be paid out of the Treasury
except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.
University of the Philippines vs. Dizon, 679 SCRA 54,
G.R. No. 171182 August 23, 2012
22. The issuance by the proper disciplining authority of an order of
preventive suspension for 90 days of a civil service officer or
employee pending investigation of her administrative case is
authorized provided that
a formal change is served to her and
the charge involves dishonesty, oppression, grave
misconduct, or neglect in the performance of duty, or
if there are reasons to believe that she is guilty of the charge
as to warrant her removal from the service.
Proof showing that the respondent officer or employee may
unduly influence the witnesses against her or may tamper the
documentary evidence on file at her office is not a prerequisite
before she may be preventively suspended. Trade and
Investment Development Corporation of the Philippines
vs. Manalang-Demigillo, 681 SCRA 27, G.R. No. 176343
September 18, 2012
Page1
23. As the findings of the RTC show, petitioner did not indicate
the total number of precincts in the municipality in his election
protest. The omission rendered the election protest insufficient in
form and content, and warranted its summary dismissal, in
accordance with Section 12, Rule 2 of the Rules in A.M. No. 10-4-1-
SC. Lloren vs. Commission on Elections, 681 SCRA 167,
G.R. No. 196355 September 18, 2012

24. The evident purposes of the requirement for the filing of
CoCs and in fixing the time limit for filing them are, namely:
a) to enable the voters to know, at least 60 days prior to the
regular election, the candidates from among whom they
are to make the choice; and
b) to avoid confusion and inconvenience in the tabulation of
the votes cast
If the law does not confine to the duly-registered candidates the choice
by the voters, there may be as many persons voted for as there are
voters, and votes may be cast even for unknown or fictitious persons as
a mark to identify the votes in favor of a candidate for another office in
the same election.
There are two remedies available to prevent a candidate from running
in an electoral race.
1) Petition for disqualification - can be premised on Section
12 or 68 of the [Omnibus Election Code], or Section 40 of
the [Local Government Code].
Sec. 40, LGC. Disqualifications. - The following persons are
disqualified from running for any elective local position:
a) Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral
turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of
imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving sentence;
b) Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case;
c) Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of
allegiance to the Republic;
d) Those with dual citizenship;
e) Fugitives from justice in criminal or non-political cases here or
abroad;
f) Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have
acquired the right to reside abroad and continue to avail of the
same right after the effectivity of this Code; and
g) The insane or feeble-minded.
Sec. 12, OEC. Any person who has been declared by competent
authority insane or incompetent, or has been sentenced by final
judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion or for any offense for
which he has been sentenced to a penalty of more than eighteen
months or for a crime involving moral turpitude, shall be disqualified
to be a candidate and to hold any office, unless he has been given
plenary pardon or granted amnesty. xxx.
2) Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy -
can only be grounded on a statement of a material representation
in the said certificate that is false.
The petitions also have different effects. While a person who is
disqualified under Section 68 is merely prohibited to continue as a
candidate, the person whose certificate is cancelled or denied due
course under Section 78 is not treated as a candidate at all, as if he/she
never filed a CoC. Talaga vs. Commission on Elections, 683
SCRA 197, G.R. No. 196804 October 9, 2012
25. The enactments of the Legislature decreed that the money to
be paid to the landowner as just compensation for the taking of his
land is to be taken only from the Agrarian Reform Fund. As such, the
liability is not the personal liability of Land Bank, but its liability
only as the administrator of the ARF. In fact, Section 10, Rule 19 of
the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure, reiterates that the satisfaction
of a judgment for just compensation by writ of execution should be
from the ARF in the custody of Land Bank. Land Bank of the
Philippines vs. Suntay, 662 SCRA 614, G.R. No. 188376
December 14, 2011
26. A party aggrieved by an interlocutory order issued by a
Division of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in an election
protest may not directly assail the order in this Court through a
special civil action for certiorari. The remedy is to seek the review of
the interlocutory order during the appeal of the decision of the
Division in due course (via MR to COMELEC en banc). Cagas vs.
Commission on Elections, 663 SCRA 645, G.R. No. 194139
January 24, 2012
27. Judicial officers do not have to suffer the brunt of
unsuccessful or dissatisfied litigants baseless and false imputations
of their violating the Constitution in resolving their cases and of
harboring bias and partiality towards the adverse parties. The
litigant who baselessly accuses them of such violations is not
immune from appropriate sanctions if he thereby affronts the
administration of justice and manifests a disrespect towards the
judicial office. Re: Verified Complaint of Engr. Oscar L. Ongjoco,
Chairman of the Board/CEO of FH-Gymn Multi-Purpose and
Transport Service Cooperative, Against Hon. Juan Q. Enriquez,
Jr., Hon. Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Hon. Florito S. Macalino,
Associate Justice, Court of Appeals, 664 SCRA 465, A.M. OCA I.P.I.
No. 11-184-CA-J January 31, 2012
28. The requirements of due process in an administrative context are
satisfied when the parties are afforded fair and reasonable
opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy,
for the essence of due process is an opportunity to be heard.
Barayuga vs. Adventist University of the Philippines, 655
SCRA 640, G.R. No. 168008 August 17, 2011
29. Compensation cannot be just to the owner in the case of property
that is immediately taken unless there is prompt payment,
considering that the owner thereby immediately suffers not only
the loss of his property but also the loss of its fruits or income.
Thus, in addition, the owner is entitled to legal interest from the
time of the taking of the property until the actual payment in
order to place the owner in a position as good as, but not better
than, the position he was in before the taking occurred. Export
Processing Zone Authority (now Philippine Export Zone
Authority) vs. Pulido, 656 SCRA 315, G.R. No. 188995
August 24, 2011
30. Even where there is no petition for bail in a case like
Criminal Case No. 1138-03, a hearing (mandatory) should still be
held. This hearing is separate and distinct from the initial hearing to
determine the existence of probable cause, in which the trial judge
ascertains whether or not there is sufficient ground to engender a
well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the
accused is probably guilty of the crime. The Prosecution must be
given a chance to show the strength of its evidence; otherwise, a
violation of due process occurs. Gacal vs. Infante, 658 SCRA
535, A.M. No. RTJ- 04-1845 October 5, 2011
31. The Cityhood Laws (from P20M to P100M income
requirement for a municipality to become a city) are constitutional.
League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) vs. Commission
on Elections, 643 SCRA 150, G.R. No. 176951 February 15,
2011
32. Once the State decides to exercise its power of eminent
domain, the power of judicial review becomes limited in scope, and
the courts will be left to determine the appropriate amount of just
compensation to be paid to the affected landowners. Only when the
landowners are not given their just compensation for the taking of
their property or when there has been no agreement on the amount
of just compensation may the remedy of prohibition become
available. Yusay vs. Court of Appeals, 647 SCRA 269, G.R.
No. 156684 April 6, 2011
33. Two concurring elements to be present before assets or
properties were considered as ill-gotten wealth, namely:
a) they must have originated from the government itself, and
b) they must have been taken by former President Marcos, his
immediate family, relatives, and close associates by illegal
means. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan (First Division),
648 SCRA 47, G.R. No. 166859 April 12, 2011
34. To safeguard the spirit of social justice that the Court has
advocated in favor of the working man, therefore, the right to
reinstatement is to be considered renounced or waived only when
the employee unjustifiably or unreasonably refuses to return to work
upon being so ordered or after the employer has offered to reinstate
him. Escario vs. National Labor Relations Commission
(Third Division), 631 SCRA 261, G.R. No. 160302
September 27, 2010
35. It is clear, therefore, that a corporation is considered a
government-owned or -controlled corporation only when the
Government directly or indirectly owns or controls at least a
majority or 51% share of the capital stock. Consequently, Radio
Philippines Network, Inc. (RPN) was neither a government-owned
nor a controlled corporation because of the Governments total share
in RPNs capital stock being only 32.4%. In fine, Carandang was
correct in insisting that being a private individual he was not subject
to the administrative authority of the Ombudsman and to the
criminal jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Carandang vs.
Desierto, 639 SCRA 293, G.R. No. 148076 January 12, 2011
36. Although the law does not categorically state that only the
Government, through the Solicitor General, may attack the title of an
alien transferee of land, it is nonetheless correct to hold that only the
Government, through the Solicitor General, has the personality to
file a case challenging the capacity of a person to acquire or to own
land based on non-citizenship. This limitation is based on the fact
that the violation is committed against the State, not against any
individual; and that in the event that the transferee is adjudged to be
not a Filipino citizen, the affected property reverts to the State, not
to the previous owner or any other individual. Balais-Mabanag vs.
Register of Deeds of Quezon City, 617 SCRA 1, G.R. No.
153142, March 29, 2010
37. The COMELEC does not lose jurisdiction over the provincial
Page1
election contest by reason of the transmittal of the provincial ballot
boxes and other election materials to the SET, because its
jurisdiction over provincial election contest exists side by side with
the jurisdiction of the SET, with each tribunal being supreme in its
respective areas of concern, with neither being higher than the other
in terms of precedence; hence, the jurisdiction of one must yield to
 the other. Tolentino vs. Commission on Elections, 617 SCRA let alone legislative power. Metropolitan Manila
575, G.R. Nos. 187958, 187961, and 187962, April 7, 2010 Development Authority vs. Trackworks Rail Transit
Advertising, 608 SCRA 325, G.R. No. 179554, December
38. The fourth ground in the COMELEC Resolution for 16, 2009
substitution of party-list nominees, i.e., he withdraws his
acceptance to a nomination is void for being contrary to R.A. 7941. 44. Prohibition on Presidential midnight appointments does not
cover the Judiciary. De Castro vs. JBC, 615 SCRA 666, G. R.
Although the people vote for the party-list organization itself in a No. 191002, March 17, 2010
party-list system of election, not for the individual nominees, they
still have the right to know who the nominees of any particular
party-list organization are. The publication of the list of the party-list
nominees in newspapers of general circulation serves that right of
the people, enabling the voters to make intelligent and informed
choices. In contrast, allowing the party-list organization to change
its nominees through withdrawal of their nominations, or to alter
the order of the nominations after the submission of the list of
nominees circumvents the voters demand for transparency. The
lawmakers exclusion of such arbitrary withdrawal has eliminated
the possibility of such circumvention. Lokin, Jr. Commission on
Elections, 621 SCRA 385, G.R. Nos. 179431-32, June 22,
2010

39. Not every temporary or provisional employee is

automatically deemed to be a permanent employee after rendering
at least seven years of service in the Government. The CSC still needs
to evaluate whether the employee is qualified to avail himself or
herself of the privilege granted by the statute. Moreover, that an
appointee obtains a civil service eligibility later on does not ipso
facto convert his temporary appointment into a permanent one. A
new appointment is still required, because a permanent
appointment is not a continuation of the temporary appointment;
the two are distinct acts of the appointing authority. Maniebo vs.
Court of Appeals, 627 SCRA 569, G.R. No. 158708, August
10, 2010

40. True, the COMELEC, as the body tasked by no less than the
1987 Constitution to investigate and prosecute violations of election
laws, has the full discretion to determine whether or not an election
case is to be filed against a person and, consequently, its findings as
to the existence of probable cause are not subject to review by courts.
Yet, this policy of non-interference does not apply where the
COMELEC, as the prosecuting or investigating body, was acting
arbitrarily and capriciously, like herein, in reaching a different but
patently erroneous result. Guzman vs. Commission on
Elections, 597 SCRA 499, G.R. No. 182380 August 28, 2009

41. Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code limits a

pre-proclamation controversy to the questions
enumerated therein. The enumeration is restrictive and
Suhuri vs. Commission on Elections,
exclusive.
602 SCRA 633, G.R. No. 181869 October 2,
2009
Sec. 243. Issues that may be raised in pre-proclamation
controversy. - The following shall be proper issues that may be
raised in a pre-proclamation controversy: (EXCLUSIVE)
a) Illegal composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers;
b) The canvassed election returns are incomplete, contain material
defects, appear to be tampered with or falsified, or contain
discrepancies in the same returns or in other authentic copies
thereof as mentioned in Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 of this
Code;
c) The election returns were prepared under duress, threats,
coercion, or intimidation, or they are obviously manufactured
or not authentic; and
d) When substitute or fraudulent returns in controverted polling
places were canvassed, the results of which materially affected
the standing of the aggrieved candidate or candidates

42. The taking of property under CARL is an exercise by the

State of the power of eminent domain. A basic limitation on the
States power of eminent domain is the constitutional directive that
private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation.

Just compensation refers to the sum equivalent to the market value

of the property, broadly described to be the price fixed by the seller in
open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal action and
competition, or the fair value of the property as between one who
receives and one who desires to sell. It is fixed at the time of the actual
taking by the State. Thus, if property is taken for public use before
compensation is deposited with the court having jurisdiction over the
case, the final compensation must include interests on its just value, to
be computed from the time the property is taken up to the time when
compensation is actually paid or deposited with the court. Apo Fruits
Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 607 SCRA 200, G.R. No.
Page1

164195 December 4, 2009

43. MMDAs powers were limited to the formulation, coordination,

regulation, implementation, preparation, management,
monitoring, setting of policies, installing a system, and
administration. Nothing in RA 7924 granted MMDA police power,