Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
CONSTI GROUP 1
1-A
AGGABAO
ALPAPARA
CAYANONG
GENOVEZA
NARCISO
ORDOÑA
PANDY
PINEDA
SAMALA
TONGSON
VELUZ
ARTICLE IX
Common Provisions
COMMON
PROVISIONS
2. Commission on Elections
Electoral office of government
- enforces laws on elections and has original jurisdiction over
electoral protests, inclusion and exclusion of voter and/or candidates
3. Commission on Audit
Auditing office of government
- monitors government expenditures and ensures that there are no
unnecessary, excessive, and extravagant uses of government funds
COMMON
PROVISIONS
RA 6758
establishes salary grades of government officials
Chairman of a Constitutional Commission: Salary Grade 31
Commissioner: Salary Grade 30
Appointing Power
The commissions may appoint within their own offices but still
have to be subject to the rules and laws promulgated by the CSC
so as not to take its power of appointments
COMMON
PROVISIONS
Commission Rules
The Supreme Court cannot judge/disprove of the internal rules
of any of the Commissions because they are independent bodies.
However, they may exercise judicial review over them.
Congress cannot review rules promulgated by commission
Rule of Commission v Rule of Court: What prevails?
- Rule of commission if proceedings are before commission, court if before
court
COMMON
PROVISIONS
INDEPENDENCE OF THE COMMISSIONS
Because the commissions perform vital government functions,
it is essential that they be protected against outside influences
and political pressure.
Section 2
list of prohibitions against engaging in activities which can distract them
from their responsibilities
Prohibition regarding the “practice of a profession” does not include
teaching.
Prohibition against “active management of business” does not prohibit the
actual owning of the business but prohibits the Commissioner from being a
managing officer or being a member of the governing board which may be
affected by the functions of his office.
Section 3
Protects their salary from diminution during their continuance in office
Section 4
Gives them independent appointment powers in accordance with the law
Section 5
Gives them fiscal autonomy
Section 6
Gives them authority, sitting en banc, to promulgate rules of procedure
COMMON
PROVISIONS
FUNA V. CHAIRMAN
Doctrine
Each commission is allowed to promulgate its own rules, and appoint its
officials. A member of a constitutional commission exercising such powers is
outside the scope of his position.
Facts
In 2010, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo appointed Francisco T.
Duque III as Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, which was confirmed
by the Commission on Appointments.
President Arroyo issued Executive Order No. 864 (EO 864) which made
Duque a member of the Board of Directors or Trustees in an ex officio
capacity of the following government-owned or government-controlled
corporations:
1. GSIS
2. PHILHEALTH
3. Employees Compensation Commission
4. Home Development Mutual Fund
Issue
W/N the designation of Duque violate the constitutional prohibition against
the holding of dual or multiple offices for the Members of the Constitutional
Commissions
COMMON
PROVISIONS
FUNA V. CHAIRMAN
Ruling
Yes. it is unconstitutional for EO 864 and the designation of Duque in an ex
officio capacity as a member of the Board of Directors or Trustees of the GSIS,
PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF.
Sec. 6 of art. 9 provides that each commission can promulgate its own rules
and procedures
A conflict of interest may arise in the event that a Board decision of the
GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF concerning personnel-related matters
is elevated to the CSC considering that such GOCCs have original charters,
and their employees are governed by CSC laws, rules and regulations.
Review of Decisions
The provision stating that COMELEC decisions are final when they involve
municipal and barangay elections are not conflicting with the Supreme Court
provision.
SC may intervene in supervisory function of COMELEC in instances where
electoral proceedings may impede on the right to suffrage.
The certiorari jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is limited to decisions taken
cognizance by commissions in the exercise of their adjudicatory or quasi-judicial
powers. It does not pertain to the executive powers such as COMELEC’s
appointing power.
COMMON
PROVISIONS
Doctrine
There is nothing in the Constitution that requires the Commission on Audit to
conducta pre-audit of all government transactions and for all government
agencies.
Facts
On 26 October 1982, the COA issued Circular No. 82-195, lifting the system of
pre-audit of government financial transactions, albeit with certain exceptions. It
affirmed the state policy that all resources of the government shall be managed,
expended or utilized in accordance with law and regulations, and safeguarded
against loss or wastage through illegal or improper disposition.
After the 1986 revolution, the new administration found grave irregularities
and anomalies in the previous administration's finances. Thus, the COA issued
Circular No. 86-257 as temporary remedy so as to reinstate the pre-audit of
selected government transactions. Eventually, the COA issued a more
permanent remedy, Circular No. 89299, which lifted the pre-audit of
government transactions of national government agencies (NGAs) and
government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs). It mandated the
implementation of an adequate internal control system.
Dela Llana filed a petition for certiorari alleging that the COA's pre-audit duty
cannot be lifted by a mere circular, considering that the it is a constitutional
mandate enshrined in Section 2 of Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution.
COMMON
PROVISIONS
Issue
W/N the COA’s power includes the duty to conduct pre-audit
Ruling
Yes. it is unconstitutional for EO 864 and the designation of Duque in an ex
ofPetitioner's allegations find no support in the aforequoted Constitutional
provision. There is nothing in the said provision that requires the COA to
conduct a pre-audit of all government transactions and for all government
agencies. The only clear reference to a pre-audit requirement is found in
Section 2, paragraph 1, which provides that a post-audit is mandated for certain
government or private entities with state subsidy or equity and only when the
internal control system of an audited entity is inadequate. In such a situation,
the COA may adopt measures, including a temporary or special pre-audit, to
correct the deficiencies.
Hence, the conduct of a pre-audit is not a mandatory duty that this Court may
compel the COA to perform. This discretion on its part is in line with the
constitutional pronouncement that the COA has the exclusive authority to
define the scope of its audit and examination. When the language of the law is
clear and explicit, there is no room for interpretation, only application. Neither
can the scope of the provision be unduly enlarged by this Court.
Doctrine
A COMELEC decision must be a final decision or resolution of the Comelec en
banc, not of a division, certainly not an interlocutory order of a division.The
Supreme Court has no power to review via certiorari, an interlocutory order
or even a final resolution of a Division of the Commission on Elections.
Facts
On February 21, 2013, petitioners posted two tarpaulins within a private
compound housing the San Sebastian Cathedral of Bacolod. Each tarpaulin was
approximately six feet (6') by ten feet (10') in size. They were posted on the front
walls of the cathedral within public view. The first tarpaulin contains the
message "IBASURA RH Law". The second tarpaulin contains the heading
"Conscience Vote" and lists candidates as either "(Anti-RH) Team Buhay" with a
check mark, or "(Pro-RH) Team Patay" with an "X" mark.
Concerned about the imminent threat of prosecution for their exercise of free
speech, petitioners initiated this case through this petition for certiorari and
prohibition with application for preliminary injunction and temporary
restraining order.
COMMON
PROVISIONS
Issue
W/N the notice/order by election officer Majacuron and by the COMELEC
are considered judgments/final orders/resolutions of the COMELEC which
would warrant a review of this court via rule 65 petition.
Ruling
Yes, the SC can review the actions done by the COMELEC in this case. The
COMELEC acted in grave abuse of discretion and did not have any
jurisdiction in threatening imminent criminal action against the Diocese’
right to expression. The SC had jurisdiction over the case given that it
involved the actions of a constitutional organ and involved the threat to the
freedom of speech and expression which is a genuine issue of
constitutionality.
The petition was granted and the TRO made permanent. The COMELEC
notice and letter were declared unconstitutional.
COMMON
PROVISIONS
QUERUBIN V. COMELEC
Doctrine
A COMELEC decision must be a final decision or resolution of the Comelec en
banc, not of a division, certainly not an interlocutory order of a division.The
Supreme Court has no power to review via certiorari, an interlocutory order
or even a final resolution of a Division of the Commission on Elections.
Facts
This case is a petition for certiorari or prohibition under Rule 64 of the Rules of
Court, with prayer for injunctive relief was filed assailing the validity and
seeking to restrain the implementation of the Commission of Elections
(COMELEC) en banc's Decision, that was allegedly repugnant to the provisions of
BP 68 (Corporation Code of the Philippines) RA 9184 (Government Procurement
Reform Act).
Upon evaluation of the submittals, the BAC, through its Resolution No. 1 dated
December 15, 2014, declared Smartmatic JV and Indra eligible to participate in
the second stage of the bidding process.
BAC issued a Notice requiring them to submit their Final Revised Technical
Tenders and Price proposals, which both companies complied with.
COMMON
PROVISIONS
QUERUBIN V. COMELEC
Facts Continuation
Smartmatic JV was deemed qualified in terms of its financial proposal while
Indra was disqualified for submitting a non-responsive bid. A post-qualification
evaluation was conducted and the BAC, through Resolution No. 9 disqualified
Smartmatic JV.
Issue
W/N Rule 64 is applicable in assailing the COMELEC en banc's Decision
granting Smartmatic JV's protest
COMMON
PROVISIONS
QUERUBIN V. COMELEC
Ruling
The rule cited by petitioners, Article IX-A, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution, is an
application of the constitutional mandate requiring that, unless otherwise
provided by law, the rulings of the constitutional commissions shall be subject to
review only by the Supreme Court on certiorari.
Rule 64 does not cover rulings of the COMELEC in the exercise of its
administrative powers. Court has consistently held that the phrase "decision,
order, or ruling" of constitutional commissions, the COMELEC included, that may
be brought directly to the Supreme Court on certiorari is not all-encompassing,
and that it only relates to those rendered in the commissions' exercise of
adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers.
Rule 64, which complemented the procedural requirement under Article IX-A,
Section 7, should likewise be read in the same sense—that of excluding from its
coverage decisions, rulings, and orders rendered by the COMELEC in the exercise
of its administrative functions. The case pertains to the propriety of the polling
commission's conduct of the procurement process, and its initial finding that
Smartmatic JV is eligible to participate therein.
Thus, subject matter of Smartmatic JV's protest, does not qualify as one
necessitating the COMELEC's exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial
powers that could properly be the subject of a Rule 64 petition, but is, in fact,
administrative in nature.
COMMON
PROVISIONS