Module 3 Reviewer On February 22, 1966, petitioner Lopez instituted in the Supreme

Court the present original action for prohibition which preliminary

I. Philippine Legal System injunction, against respondent Roxas, to prevent the PET from
hearing and deciding the aforementioned election contest, upon the
A. Courts: Who interprets and the Constitution and the law? ground that RA 1793, creating said Tribunal, is “unconstitutional,”
and that, “all’ proceedings taken by it are a nullity.”
1. Judicial Power Defined
Issues:
LOPEZ, petitioner vs. ROXAS, respondent
G.R. No. L-25716  Whether or not RA1793 is constitutional. (Yes)
28 July 1996  Whether or not PET can recount votes. (Yes)
Concepcion, C.J.:  Whether or not RA1793 violates constitutional tenure. (No)
 Whether or not Justices of SC can sit as PET members. (Yes)
Facts:
Held:
Fernando Lopez and Gerardo Roxas were the main contenders Vice
President in the general elections held on November 9, 1965. By JUDICIAL POWER is the authority to settle justiciable controversies
Resolution No. 2, the two Houses of Congress, in joint session or disputes involving rights that are enforceable and demandable
assembled as the board charged with the duty to canvass the votes before the courts of justice or the redress of wrongs for violations of
then cast for President and Vice President of the Philippines, such rights. The proper exercise of said authority requires legislative
proclaimed petitioner Fernando Lopez elected to the latter office action: (1) defining such enforceable and demandable rights and/or
with 3,531,550 votes, or a plurality of 26,724 votes over his closest prescribing remedies for violations thereof; and (2) determining the
opponent, respondent Gerardo M. Roxas, in whose favor 3,504,826 court with jurisdiction to hear and decide said controversies or
votes had been tallied, according to said resolution. On January 5, disputes, in the first instance and/or on appeal. For this reason, the
1966, respondent filed, with the Presidential Electoral Constitution ordains that “Congress shall have the power to define,
Tribunal(PET), Election Protest No, 2, contesting the election of prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts,”
petitioner herein as Vice-President of the Philippines, upon the subject to the limitations set forth in the fundamental law.
ground that it was not he, but said respondent, who had obtained
the largest number of votes for said office. Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution vests in the judicial branch
of the government, not merely some specified or limited judicial
power, but the entirety or “all” of said power, except, so much as the municipal court of a provincial capital exercises its authority,
Constitution confers upon some other agency, such as the power to pursuant to law, over a limited number of cases which were
“judge all contests relating to the election, returns and previously within the exclusive jurisdiction of Courts of First
qualifications” of members of the Senate and those of the House of Instance. In all of these instances, the court (Court of First Instance
Representatives, which is vested by the fundamental law solely in or municipal court) is only one, although the functions may be
the Senate Electoral Tribunal and the House Electoral Tribunal, distinct and, even, separate.
respectively (Article VI, Section 11, of the Constitution).
The power to be the judge of contests relating to the election,
RA 1793, creating the PET, has the effect of giving a defeated returns, and qualifications of any public officer is essentially judicial.
candidate the legal right to contest judicially the election of the As such—under the very principle of separation of powers—it
President elect or Vice-President-elect and to demand a recount of belongs exclusively to the judicial department, except only insofar as
the votes cast for the office involved in the litigation, as well as to the Constitution provides otherwise. This is precisely the reason why
secure a judgment declaring that he, not the candidate proclaimed said organic law ordains that “the Senate and the House of
elected by Congress, is the one elected President or Vice-President, Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be
as the case may be, and that, as such, he is entitled to assume the the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
duties attached to said office. qualifications of their respective Members” (Article VI, Section 11, of
the Constitution). In other words, the purpose of this provision was
RA 1793 provides that the PET “shall be composed of the Chief to exclude the power to decide such contests relating to Members of
Justice and the other ten Members of the Supreme Court”, it has Congress—which by nature is judicial—from the operation of the
conferred upon such Court an additional original jurisdiction of an general grant of judicial power to “the Supreme Court and such
exclusive character. It has not created a new or separate court. It has inferior courts as may be established by law”.
merely conferred upon the Supreme Court the functions of a
Presidential Electoral Tribunal. The PET is not inferior to the SC, The power of Congress to declare who, among the candidates for
since it is the same Court, although the functions peculiar to said President and/or Vice President, has obtained the largest number of
Tribunal are more limited in scope than those of the Supreme Court votes, is entirely different in nature from and not inconsistent with
in the exercise of its ordinary functions. It is like the fact that Courts the jurisdiction vested in the PET. Congress merely acts as a national
of First Instance (now RTC) perform the functions of such ordinary board of canvassers, charged with the ministerial and executive duty
Courts of First Instance, those of courts of land registration, those of to make said declaration, on the basis of the election returns only
probate courts, and those of courts of juvenile and domestic certified by provincial and city boards of canvassers. (Article VII,
relations. It is, also, comparable to the situation obtaining when the Section 2, Constitution of the Philippines.) Upon the other hand, PET
has the judicial power to determine whether or not said duly certified G.R. No. 237428
election returns have been irregularly made or tampered with, or 11 May 2018
reflect the true results of the elections in the areas covered by each, Tijam, J.:
and, if not, to recount the ballots cast, and, pass upon the validity of
each ballot or determine whether the same shall be counted, and, in Facts:
the affirmative, in whose favor, which Congress has no power to do.
The authority of the PET to determine whether or not the protestant The Office of the Solicitor General initiated the case for quo
has a better right than the President and/or Vice-President to be warranto asking the court to declare CJ Sereno ineligible to hold
declared elected by Congress would not abridge the constitutional office for failing to regularly disclose her assets, liabilities, and net
tenure. If the evidence introduced in the election protest shows that worth, asserting that her failure to make said dicslosures show that
the person really elected President or Vice-President is the she does not possess “proven integrity” demanded of every aspirant
protestant, not the person declared elected by Congress, then the to the Judiciary.
latter had legally no constitutional tenure whatsoever, and, hence,
he can claim no abridgment thereof. Sereno served as a member of the faculty of the UP College of Law
(UP) from 1986 to 2006. She also served as legal counsel for the
In imposing upon the Supreme Court, the additional duty of Republic of the Philippines for several agencies from 1994 until 2009.
performing the functions of a Presidential Electoral Tribunal, On July 2010, Respondent submitted her application for the position
Congress has not, through Republic Act No. 1793, encroached upon of Associate Justice of the SC.
the appointing power of the Executive. The imposition of new duties
constitutes, neither the creation of an office, nor the appointment of Despite the span of 20 years of employment with UP from 1986 to
an officer. Said law is constitutional. 2006 and despite having been employed as legal counsel of various
government agencies from 2003 to 2009, records from the UP
Human Resources Development Office, Central Records Division of
Ruling: the Office of the Ombudsman, and the Office of Recruitment
Selection and Nomination (ORSN) of the Judicial and Bar Council
Wherefore, the petition herein is hereby DISMISSED, and the writs (JBC) show that the only Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net
therein prayed for DENIED. With costs against the petitioner. Worth (SALN) available on record and filed by Respondent were
those for the years 1985, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996,
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner vs. SERENO, 1997, 1998, and 2002, or only 11 out of 25 SALNs that ought to have
respondent been filed. No SALNs were filed from 2003 to 2006 when she was
employed as legal counsel for the Republic. Neither was a SALN filed Respondent, on the other hand, argues that the Chief Justice may
when she resigned from U.P. College of Law as of 1 June 2006 and only be ousted from office by impeachment on the basis of the
when she supposedly re-entered government service as of 16 August Constitution and a long line of jurisprudence. Alternatively, she
2010. argues that the present petition is time-barred, as it should have
been filed within one year from the cause of ouster, and not from the
The Justice Committee conducted several hearings to determine discovery of the disqualification.
probable cause. Among the Justices who appeared before the
Committee are (1) Justice Leonardo-De Castro who recounted (a) CJ It is likewise the contention of Respondent that public officers
Sereno’s bypassing the SC En banc in creating Judiciary without pay or those who do not receive compensation are not
Decentralized Office, (b) the suspicious issuance of the TRO in the required to file a SALN. Thus, Respondent argues that for the years
Senior Citizens case, (c) the revocation of the privilege of Members that she was on official leave without pay, she was actually not
of the Court to nominate for vacant judicial posts, and (d) the required to file any SALN. She adds that to require the submission of
clustering of the Sandiganabayan nominees; (2) Justice Peralta who SALNs as an absolute requirement is to expand the qualifications
testified as the ex-officio JBC Chairperson of the Council that provided by the Constitution.
nominated CJ Sereno; (3) Justice Bersamin; (4) Justice Tijam; and, (5)
Justice Jardeleza. Respondent urges the Court to apply in her favor the case of
Concerned Taxpayer v. Doblada, Jr., and deem as sufficient and
The OSG (Petitioner) argues that quo warranto is an available acceptable her statement that she “maintains that she consistently
remedy in questioning the validity of Respondent’s appointment, filed her SALNs.” Respondent argues that the Court’s rationale in
and that the one-year bar rule does not apply against the State. It Doblada that one cannot readily conclude failure to file SALNs
also argues that the SC has jurisdiction over the petition. The simply because these documents are missing in the Office of the
petition alleges that the failure of Respondent to submit her SALNs Court Administrator's files should likewise be made applicable to her
as required by the JBC disqualifies her, at the outset, from being a case.
candidate for the position of Chief Justice. Lacking the required
number of SALNs, Respondent has not proven her integrity, which Several groups claiming standing as taxpayers and citizens filed
is a requirement under the Constitution. The Republic thus Motions for Leave to Intervene echoing some or all of CJ Sereno’s
concludes that since Respondent is ineligible for the position of Chief arguments. Senators De Lima and Trillanes filed a similar motion
Justice for lack of proven integrity, she has no right to hold office and alleging the usurpation of functions of the Court from the Senate
may therefore be ousted via quo warranto. Impeachment Court.
CJ Sereno filed Motions for Inhibition against Associate Justices 1. Whether Respondent failed to file her SALNs as mandated
Bersamin, Peralta, Jardeleza, Tijam, and Leonardo-De Castro, by the Constitution and required by the law and its
imputing actual bias on said Justices for having testified before the implementing rules and regulations; and if so, whether the
House Justice Committee; and, against Justice Martires for his failure to file SALNs voids the nomination and appointment
purported insinuations of CJ Sereno’s psychological fitness during of Respondent as Chief Justice;
the Oral Arguments. CJ Sereno also prayed that the Motion for 2. Whether Respondent failed to comply with the submission
Inhibition be by the SC En banc without the participation of the of SALNs as required by the JBC; and if so, whether the
Justices who are asked to inhibit. failure to submit SALNs to the JBC voids the nomination and
appointment of Respondent as Chief Justice; and
Issues: 3. In case of a finding that Respondent is ineligible to hold the
position of Chief Justice, whether the subsequent
 Whether the grant of the motions to intervene is proper. nomination by the JBC and the appointment by the
 Whether the grant of the motions for inhibition against the President cured such ineligibility.
Associate Justices on the basis of actual bias is proper.
 Whether the Court can assume jurisdiction and give due  Whether Respondent is a de jure or de facto officer.
course to the instant petition for quo warranto against
Respondent who is an impeachable officer and against
whom an impeachment complaint has already been filed
with the House of Representatives;
 Whether the petition is dismissible outright on the ground
of prescription;
5. Whether Respondent is eligible for the position of Chief Held:
Justice:
Propriety of Motion for Intervention
 Whether the determination of a candidate’s eligibility for
nomination is the sole and exclusive function of the JBC, and Intervention is a remedy by which a third party, not originally
whether such determination partakes of the character of a impleaded in the proceedings, becomes a litigant therein to enable
political question outside the Court’s supervisory and review the third party to protect or preserve a right or interest that may be
powers; affected by those proceedings. It is not a matter of right but
addressed to the sound discretion of the court upon compliance with
the requirements of (a) legal interest, and (b) that no delay or inhibition, the mere fact that some of the Associate Justices
prejudice should result. participated in the hearings of the Committee on Justice
determining probable cause for the impeachment of Respondent
The Court noted the IBP’s intervention and resolved to deny the does not disqualify them to hear the instant petition.
motions for intervention filed by several other groups. It observed
that intervention is not a matter of right but of sound judicial Their appearance was in deference to the House of Representatives
discretion; that movant- intervenors have no legal interest in the whose constitutional duty to investigate the impeachment
case, as required in order to qualify a person to intervene; and that complaint filed against Respondent could not be doubted. Their
the remedy of quo warranto is vested in the people, and not in a appearance was with the prior consent of the Supreme Court En
particular group. Banc and they faithfully observed the parameters that the Court set
for the purpose. Their statements in the hearing should be carefully
Lastly, such individuals do not claim a right to the questioned viewed within this context and should not be hastily interpreted as
position, which is the only time when an individual himself/herself an adverse attack against Respondent.
may commence an action for quo warranto. In this case, the
movants-intervenors are neither individuals claiming to be entitled The second paragraph of Rule 137, Section 1, does not give judges
to the questioned position nor are they the ones charged with the unfettered discretion to decide whether to desist from hearing a
usurpation thereof. case. The inhibition must be for just and valid causes. The mere
imputation of bias or partiality is not enough ground for inhibition,
The only intervention that could be contemplated under a quo especially when the charge is without basis. The Court has to be
warranto proceeding, by its nature, is one brought by a person shown acts or conduct clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice
claiming to be entitled to the usurped office. before it can brand them with the stigma of bias or partiality.
Moreover, extrinsic evidence is required to establish bias, bad faith,
Propriety for Motions for Inhibition malice or corrupt purpose, in addition to palpable error which may
be inferred from the decision or order itself. The only exception to
There is no basis for the Associate Justices to inhibit. Movant must the rule is when the error is so gross and patent as to produce an
prove bias and prejudice by clear and convincing evidence to ineluctable inference of bad faith or malice.
disqualify a judge. Justice Tijam’s statement, taken as a whole, was
only to prod the Respondent to observe and respect the In this case, it does not appear that there are grounds for compulsory
constitutional process of impeachment. It does not appear that inhibition. As to voluntary inhibition, the mere fact that some of the
there are grounds for compulsory inhibition. As to voluntary Associate Justices participated in the hearings of the Committee on
Justice determining probable cause for the impeachment of apparent bias arose from his belief that respondent caused the
respondent does not make them disqualified to hear the instant exclusion of his wife, Court of Appeals (CA) Associate Justice
petition. Their appearance thereat was in deference to the House of Fernanda Lampas Peralta, from the list of applications for the
Representatives whose constitutional duty to investigate the position of CA Presiding Justice. Justice Peralta has made it clear
impeachment complaint filed against respondent could not be during the February 12, 2018 Congressional hearing that he has
doubted. Their appearance was with the prior consent of the already moved on from said issue and that the purpose of his
Supreme Court En Banc and they faithfully observed the parameters testimony was merely to protect prospective applicants to the
that the Court set for the purpose. Their statements in the hearing, Judiciary.
should be carefully viewed within this context, and should not be
hastily interpreted as an adverse attack against respondent. Absent strong and compelling evidence establishing actual bias and
partiality on the part of the Justices whose recusal was sought,
A circumspect reading of Justice Tijam's statements in the Manila respondent’s motions for inhibition must perforce fail. Mere
Times article reveals that the manifest intent of the statements was conjectures and speculations cannot justify the inhibition of a Judge
only to prod respondent to observe and respect the constitutional or Justice from a judicial matter. The presumption that the judge will
process of impeachment, and to exemplify the ideals of public undertake his noble role of dispensing justice in accordance with law
accountability. and evidence, and without fear or favor, should not be abandoned
without clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
Justice Bersamin’s statement that “Ang Supreme Court ay hindi po
maaring mag function kung isa ay diktador,” is clearly a hypothetical Jurisdiction over Petition for Quo Warranto
statement, an observation on what would the Court be if any of its
Members were to act dictatorially. Likewise, the Court cannot While the hierarchy of courts serves as a general determinant of the
ascribe bias in Justice Bersamin’s remark that he was offended by appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs, a direct
respondent's attitude in ignoring the collegiality of the Supreme invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue such
Court when she withdrew the Justices’ “privilege” to recommend writs is allowed when there are special and important reasons
nominees to fill vacancies in the Supreme Court. It would be therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. In the instant
presumptuous to equate this statement to a personal resentment as case, direct resort to the Court is justified considering that the action
respondent regards it. for quo warranto questions the qualification of no less than a
Member of the Court. The issue is of transcendental importance, is
Justice Peralta’s testimony before the House Committee on Justice one of first impression, and of paramount public interest.
also contradicts respondent’s allegation that Justice Peralta’s
The origin, nature, and purpose of impeachment and quo warranto Court’s exercise of its jurisdiction over quo warranto proceedings
are materially different. Impeachment proceedings are political in does not preclude Congress from enforcing its own prerogative of
nature, while quo warranto is judicial. Impeachment is a proceeding determining probable cause for impeachment, to craft and transmit
exercised by the legislative, as representatives of the sovereign, to the Articles of Impeachment, nor will it preclude Senate from
vindicate the breach of the trust reposed by the people in the hands exercising its constitutionally committed power of impeachment.
of the public officer by determining the public officer’s fitness to stay
in the office. Meanwhile, an action for quo warranto, involves a An act or omission committed prior to or at the time of appointment
judicial determination of the eligibility or validity of the election or or election relating to an official’s qualifications to hold office as to
appointment of a public official based on predetermined rules. render such appointment or election invalid is properly the subject
of a quo warranto petition, provided that the requisites for the
Quo warranto and impeachment may proceed independently of commencement thereof are present. Contrariwise, acts or
each other as these remedies are distinct as to (1) jurisdiction (2) omissions, even if it relates to the qualification of integrity, being a
grounds, (3) applicable rules pertaining to initiation, filing and continuing requirement but nonetheless committed during the
dismissal, and (4) limitations. Thus, there is no forum shopphing in incumbency of a validly appointed and/or validly elected official,
the instant case as the nature and purpose of the remedies are cannot be the subject of a quo warranto proceeding, but of
different, and there is yet no impeachment trial. something else, which may either be impeachment if the public
official concerned is impeachable and the act or omission constitutes
Impeachment is not an exclusive remedy by which an invalidly an impeachable offense, or disciplinary, administrative or criminal
appointed or invalidly elected impeachable official may be removed action, if otherwise.
from office. Article XI, Sec. 2 of the Constitution uses the permissive An outright dismissal of the petition based on speculation that
term “may” which, in statutory construction, denotes discretion and respondent will eventually be tried on impeachment is a clear
cannot be construed as having a mandatory effect. To subscribe to abdication of the Court's duty to settle actual controversy squarely
the view that appointments or election of impeachable officers are presented before it. Indeed, the easiest way to lose power is to
outside judicial review is to cleanse their appointments or election of abdicate it.
any possible defect pertaining to the Constitutionally-prescribed
qualifications which cannot otherwise be raised in an impeachment Prescription does not lie against the State
proceeding.
The one-year limitation is not applicable when the Petitioner is not a
The Supreme Court’s exercise of its jurisdiction over a quo warranto mere private individual pursuing a private interest, but the
petition is not violative of the doctrine of separation of powers. The government itself seeking relief for a public wrong and suing for
public interest. In the three instances enumerated by Rules of Court, abandonment of its right to seek redress against a public wrong and
the Solicitor General is mandated under the Rules to commence the vindicate public interest.
necessary quo warranto petition, as seen in the use of the word Lastly, the Court finds it more important to rule on the merits of the
“must.” In Agcaoili v. Suguitan, “As a general principle it may be novel issues imbued with public interest presented before Us than to
stated that ordinary statutes of limitation, civil or penal, have no dismiss the case outright merely on technicality.
application to quo warranto proceeding brought to enforce a public
right.” In effect, when the government is the real party in interest, Ineligibility as a Candidate and Nominee for the Position of Chief
and is proceeding mainly to assert its rights, there can be no defense Justice
on the ground of laches or prescription.
Indubitably, the basic principle that “prescription does not lie against The Court's supervisory authority over the JBC includes ensuring
the State” which finds textual basis under Article 1108 (4) of the Civil that the JBC complies with its own rules. The Court's supervisory
Code, applies in this case. power consists of seeing to it that the JBC complies with its own rules
and procedures.
Further, that prescription does not lie in this case can also be
deduced from the very purpose of an action for quo warranto, which The SALN requirement is imposed no less than by the Constitution
is to prevent a continuing exercise of an authority unlawfully and made more emphatic by its accompanying laws and its
asserted. The Republic, then, cannot be faulted for questioning implementing rules and regulations. In other words, one who fails to
Respondent’s qualification for office only upon discovery of the file his or her SALN violates the Constitution and the laws; and one
cause of ouster. who violates the Constitution and the laws cannot rightfully claim to
Respondent cleverly hid the fact of non-filing by stating that she be a person of integrity as such equation is theoretically and
should not be required to submit the said documents as she was practically antithetical. The obligation of members of the Judiciary
considered to be coming from private practice; that it was not to file their respective SALNs is not only a statutory requirement but
feasible to retrieve most of her records in the academe considering forms part of the mandatory conduct expected of a judge so that an
that the same are more than fifteen years old; and that U.P. already “honorable competent and independent Judiciary exists to
cleared her of “all academic/administrative responsibilities, money administer justice and thus promote the unity of the country, the
and property accountabilities and from administrative charges”. She stability of government, and the well-being of the people.”
has never been clear on whether she had filed the required SALNs or
not. Given the foregoing, there can be no acquiescence or inaction, To be of proven integrity, as required by qualifications under the
in this case, on the part of the Republic as would amount to an Constitution, means that the applicant must have established a
steadfast adherence to moral and ethical principles. In this line,
failure to file the SALN is clearly a violation of the law. The offense is already required. There was no indication that the JBC deemed the
penal in character and is a clear breach of the ethical standards set three SALNs (for the years 2009, 2010 and 2011) submitted by
for public officials and employees. It disregards the requirement of Respondent for her 20 years as a professor in the U.P. College of Law
transparency as a deterrent to graft and corruption. For these and two years as Justice, as substantial compliance. Respondent was
reasons, a public official who has failed to comply with the specifically singled out from the rest of the applicants for having
requirement of filing the SALN cannot be said to be of proven failed to submit a single piece of SALN for her years of service in the
integrity and the Court may consider him/her disqualified from U.P. College of Law.
holding public office. In the end, it appears that the JBC En Banc decided to require only
the submission of the past ten (10) SALNs, or from 2001- 2011, for
Respondent’s argument that failure to file SALN does not negate applicants to the Chief Justice position. It is clear that the JBC En
integrity does not persuade. Whether or not Respondent Banc did not do away with the requirement of submission of SALNs,
accumulated unexplained wealth is not in issue at this time, but only that substantial compliance therewith, i.e., the submission of
whether she, in the first place, complied with the mandatory the SALNs for the immediately preceding 10 years instead of all
requirement of filing of SALNs. SALNs, was deemed sufficient. Records clearly show that the only
remaining applicant-incumbent Justice who was not determined by
That UP HRDO never asked Respondent to comply with the SALN the JBC En Banc to have substantially complied was Respondent,
laws holds no water as the duty to comply with such is incumbent who submitted only three SALNs, i.e., 2009, 2010 and 2011, even
with the Respondent, and because there was no duty for the UP after extensions of the deadline for the submission to do so. Her
HRDO to order compliance under the rules implemented at that justifications do not persuade. Contrary to her argument that the
time; 5) That Respondent’s compliance with the SALN requirement SALNs are old and are infeasible to retrieve, the Republic was able
was reflected in the matrix of requirements and shortlist prepared by to retrieve some of the SALNs dating back to 1985.
the JBC is dispelled by the fact that the appointment goes into her
qualifications which were mistakenly believed to be present, and Respondent was specifically singled out from the rest of the
that she should have been disqualified at the outset. applicants for having failed to submit a single piece of SALN for her
years of service in the U.P. College of Law. This is in obvious contrast
The established and undisputed fact is Respondent failed to submit with the other shortlisted applicants who submitted SALNs, or
the required number of SALNs in violation of the rules set by the JBC whose years in government service correspond to the period prior to
itself during the process of nomination. The JBC determined that she the effectivity of R.A. No. 6713. The clearance issued by UP HRDO
did not submit her SALNs from 1986 to 2006 and that, as remarked hardly suffice as a substitute for SALNs.
by Senator Escudero, the filing thereof during those years was
The import of said clearance is limited only to clearing respondent of other than by impeachment, is justified. The remedy, therefore, of a
her academic and administrative responsibilities, money and quo warranto at the instance of the State is proper to oust
property accountabilities and from administrative charges as of the Respondent from the appointive position of Chief Justice.
date of her resignation on June 1, 2006. But such could not, by any
stretch of imagination, be considered as compliance with the SALN Upon a finding that Respondent is in fact ineligible to hold the
requirement. Obviously, an administrative officer, performing position of Chief Justice and is therefore unlawfully holding and
ministerial and administrative duties, could not have certified exercising such public office, the consequent judgment under
respondent's compliance with the filing of SALNs which is a Section 9, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court is the ouster and exclusion of
statutory, and not merely an administrative, requirement. Respondent from holding and exercising the rights, functions and
duties of the Office of the Chief Justice.
The failure to submit the required SALNs means that the JBC and the
public are divested of the opportunity to consider the applicant's Sub Judice Rule
fitness or propensity to commit corruption or dishonesty.
Respondent's disposition and propensity to commit dishonesty and The sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to
lack of candidness are manifested through her subsequent acts the judicial proceedings in order to avoid prejudging the issue,
committed during her incumbency as Chief Justice, which are now influencing the court, or obstructing the administration of justice.
matters of public record and also determined to be constituting The sub judice rule finds a more austere application to members of
probable cause for impeachment. Respondent's ineligibility for lack the Bar and of the Bench as the strict observance thereof is
of proven integrity cannot be cured by her nomination and mandated by the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Code
subsequent appointment as Chief Justice. of Judicial Conduct.

De facto Officer It is thus perturbing that certain officials of the separate branches of
the Government and even men and women learned in law had
The effect of a finding that a person appointed to an office is succumbed to the tempting affray that tends to divert the instant
ineligible therefor is that his presumably valid appointment will give quo warranto action from its primary purpose. Even worse,
him color of title that confers on him the status of a de facto officer. Respondent and her spokespersons chose to litigate Respondent's
For lack of a Constitutional qualification, Respondent is ineligible to case, apart from her Ad Cautelam submissions to the Court, before
hold the position of Chief Justice and is merely holding a colorable several media-covered engagements. Through her actuations,
right or title thereto. As such, Respondent has never attained the Respondent appears to have forgotten that this is a court action for
status of an impeachable official and her removal from the office,
quo warranto, and as such, the concomitant rule on sub judice The position of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is declared
applies. vacant and the Judicial and Bar Council is directed to commence the
application and nomination process.
Such actions, indeed, resulted in the obfuscation of the issues on
hand, camouflaging the charges against her with assaults to judicial Respondent Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno is ordered to SHOW CAUSE
independence, and falsely conditioning the public's mind that this is within ten (10) days from receipt hereof why she should not be
a fight for democracy. Once and for all, it should be stated that this sanctioned for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and
is not a fight for democracy nor for judicial independence. This is an the Code of Judicial Conduct for transgressing the sub judice rule and
undertaking of the Court's duty, as it is called for by the Republic, to for casting aspersions and ill motives to the Members of the
judicially determine and settle the uncertainty in the qualification, or Supreme Court.
otherwise, of Respondent to occupy the highest position in the
Judiciary. 2. Separation and Blending of Powers

It is well-nigh unthinkable for respondent to profess deprivation of ANGARA, petitioner vs. ELECTORAL COMMISSION, respondent
due process when she herself chose to litigate her case before the G.R. No. 45081
media. when aggressive actions are taken against the Judiciary as an 15 July 1936
institution and clouds of doubt are casted upon the people's faith in Laurel, J.:
the administration of justice, especially so when the same are
perpetrated by members of the Bar, this Court cannot be apathetic Facts:
to and is not helpless against such attacks, but the prudent thing to
do is to stand and deal with it head on. In the elections of September 17, q935, petitioner, Jose A. Angara
and the respondents, Pedro Ynsua, Miguel Castillo and Dionisio
Ruling: Mayor, were candidates voted for the position of member of the
National Assembly for the first district of the Province of Tayabas.
Petition is GRANTED, Respondent Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno is
found DISQUALIFIED from and is hereby adjudged GUILTY of On October 7, the provincial board of canvassers proclaimed the
UNLAWFULLY HOLDING and EXERCISING the OFFICE OF THE petitioner as member-elect of the National Assembly for the said
CHIEF JUSTICE. Accordingly, Respondent is OUSTED and district for having received the greatest number of votes. On
EXCLUDED therefrom. November 15, the petitioner took his oath of office.
On December 8, respondent Ynsua filed before the Electoral protest. He contended that the Constitution confers exclusive
Commission a Motion of Protest against the election of the jurisdiction upon the said Electoral Commission as regards the
petitioner, being the only protest filed after the passage of merits of contested elections to the National Assembly and the
Resolution No. 8, and praying that said respondent be declared Supreme Court therefore has no jurisdiction to hear the case.
elected member of the National Assembly for the first district of
Tayabas, or that the election of said position be nullified. Issues:

On December 9, the Electoral Commision adopted a resolution,  Whether or not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the
paragraph 6 of which provides that it will not consider any election Electoral Commission and the subject matter of the
protest that was not submitted on or before December 9, 1935. controversy upon the foregoing related facts, and in the
affirmative. (Yes)
On December 20, the petitioner, Jose A. Angara, one of the  Whether or not the Electoral Commission acted without or
respondents in the protest, filed before the Electoral Commission a in excess of its jurisdiction in assuming the cognizance of the
Motion to Dismiss the Protest, alleging (a) that the Resolution No. 8 protest filed against the election of the petitioner
of the National Assembly was adopted in the legitimate exercise of notwithstanding the previous confirmation of such election
its constitutional prerogative to prescribe the period during which by resolution of the National Assembly.
protests against the election of its members should be presented; (b)
that the aforesaid resolution has for its object, and is the accepted Held:
formula for the limitation of said period; and (c) that the protest in
question was filed out of the prescribed period; YES, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the Electoral
Commission and the subject matter of the controversy upon the
On December 27, respondent, Pedro Ynsua, filed an An answer to foregoing related facts, and in the affirmative
Motion of Dismissal alleging that there is no legal or constitutional
provision barring the presentation of a protest against the election The Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks and
of a member of the National Assembly after confirmation. balances to secure coordination in the workings of the various
departments of the government.
The case was argued before the Supreme Court on March 13, 1936.
Before it was submitted for decision, the petitioner prayed for the The National Assembly operates as a check on the Executive in the
issuance of a preliminary writ of injunction to restrain and prohibit sense that its consent through its Commission on Appointments is
the Electoral Commission taking further cognizance of Ynsua’s necessary in the appointments of certain officers; and the
concurrence of a majority of all its members is essential to the interfered with, when and while acting within the limits of its
conclusion of treaties. Furthermore, in its power to determine what authority, it does not follow that it is beyond the reach of the
courts other than the Supreme Court shall be established, to define constitutional mechanism adopted by the people and that it is not
their jurisdiction and to appropriate funds for their support, the subject to constitutional restrictions.
National Assembly controls the judicial department to a certain Upon principle, reason and authority, we are clearly of the opinion
extent. The Assembly also exercises the judicial power of trying that upon the admitted facts of the present case, this court has
impeachments. jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission and the subject matter of
the present controversy for the purpose of determining the
The judiciary in turn, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, character, scope and extent of the constitutional grant to the
effectively checks the other departments in the exercise of its power Electoral Commission as "the sole judge of all contests relating to the
to determine the law, and hence to declare executive and legislative election, returns and qualifications of the members of the National
acts void if violative of the Constitution. Assembly."

In cases of conflict, the judicial department is the only constitutional No, the Electoral Commission did not act without or in excess of its
organ which can be called upon to determine the proper allocation jurisdiction in assuming the cognizance of the protest filed against
of powers between the several departments and among the integral the election of the petitioner notwithstanding the previous
or constituent units thereof. confirmation of such election by resolution of the National
Assembly.
In the United States where no express constitutional grant is found
in their constitution, the possession of this moderating power of the The Electoral Commission acted within the legitimate exercise of its
courts, not to speak of its historical origin and development there, constitutional prerogative in assuming to take cognizance of the
has been set at rest by popular acquiescence for a period of more protest filed by the respondent Ynsua against the election of the
than one and a half centuries. In our case, this moderating power is petitioner Angara, and that the earlier resolution of the National
granted, if not expressly, by clear implication from section 2 of article Assembly cannot in any manner toll the time for filing election
VIII of our constitution. protests against members of the National Assembly, nor prevent the
filing of a protest within such time as the rules of the Electoral
The Electoral Commission is a constitutional organ, created for a Commission might prescribe.
specific purpose, namely, to determine all contests relating to the
election, returns and qualifications of the members of the National Section 4, Article VI of the Constitution provides that “x x x The
Assembly. Although the Electoral Commission may not be Electoral Commission shall be the sole judge of all contests relating
to the election, returns and qualifications of the members of the
National Assembly.” The grant of power to the Electoral
Commission to judge all contests relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of members of the National 3. Hierarchy of The Philippine Judicial System
Assembly is intended to be as complete and unimpaired as if it had
remained originally in the legislature. The express lodging of that a. Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts
power in the Electoral Commission is an implied denial of the
exercise of that power by the National Assembly. xxx. DIOCESE OF BACOLOD, petitioner vs. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, respondent
The creation of the Electoral Commission carried with it ex G.R. No. 205728
necessitate rei the power regulative in character to limit the time 21 July 2015
with which protests entrusted to its cognizance should be filed. Leonen, J.:
Where a general power is conferred or duty enjoined, every
particular power necessary for the exercise of the one or the Facts:
performance of the other is also conferred. In the absence of any
further constitutional provision relating to the procedure to be On February 21, 2013, petitioners posted two (2) tarpaulins within a
followed in filing protests before the Electoral Commission, private compound housing the San Sebastian Cathedral of Bacolod.
therefore, the incidental power to promulgate such rules necessary
for the proper exercise of its exclusive power to judge all contests Each tarpaulin was approximately six feet (6′ ) by ten feet (10′ ) in
relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the size. They were posted on the front walls of the cathedral within
National Assembly, must be deemed by necessary implication to public view. The first tarpaulin contains the message “IBASURA RH
have been lodged also in the Electoral Commission. Law” referring to the Reproductive Health Law of 2012 or Republic
Act No. 10354. The second tarpaulin is the subject of the present
Ruling: case. This tarpaulin contains the heading “Conscience Vote” and lists
candidates as either “(Anti -RH) Team Buhay” with a check mark, or
Petition for the writ of prohibition against the Electoral Commission “(Pro-RH) Team Patay” with an “X” mark.
is hereby denied, with costs against petitioner.
Team Patay: Juan Edgardo Angara, Teddy Casino, Alan Peter
Cayetano, Jackie Enrile, Francis Escudero, Risa Hontiveros, Loren
Legarda,
 Partylist Gabriela, Partylist Akbayan, Partylist Bayan Muna, Partylist  Whether or not the assailed notice and letter for the removal of the
Anak Pawis tarpaulin violated petitioners’ fundamental right to freedom of
Team Buhay: JV Estrada, Gregorio Honasan, Mitos Magsaysay, Koko expression. (Yes)
Pimentel, Antonio Trillanes, Cynthia Villar, Partylist Buhay Partylist  Whether the order for removal of the tarpaulin is a content-based or
Ang Pamilya content-neutral regulation. (Content-Based)
 Whether or not there was violation of petitioners’ right to property.
The electoral candidates were classified according to their vote on (Yes)
the adoption of Republic Act No. 10354, otherwise known as the RH  Whether or not the tarpaulin and its message are considered
Law. Those who voted for the passing of the law were classified by religious speech. (No)
petitioners as comprising “Team Patay,” while those who voted
against it form “Team Buhay.” Held:

Respondents conceded that the tarpaulin was neither sponsored nor First Issue
paid for by any candidate. Petitioners also conceded that the
tarpaulin contains names of candidates for the 2013 elections, but The Court ruled that the present case does not call for the exercise
not of politicians who helped in the passage of the RH Law but were of prudence or modesty. There is no political question. It can be
not candidates for that election. acted upon by this court through the expanded jurisdiction granted
to this court through Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution.
Issues:
The concept of a political question never precludes judicial review
 Whether or not the size limitation and its reasonableness of the when the act of a constitutional organ infringes upon a fundamental
tarpaulin is a political question, hence not within the ambit of the individual or collective right. Even assuming arguendo that the
Supreme Court’s power of review. (No) COMELEC did have the discretion to choose the manner of
 Whether or not the petitioners violated the principle of exhaustion regulation of the tarpaulin in question, it cannot do so by abridging
of administrative remedies as the case was not brought first before the fundamental right to expression.
the COMELEC En Banc or any if its divisions. (No)
 Whether or not COMELEC may regulate expressions made by Also, the Court said that in our jurisdiction, the determination of
private citizens. (No) whether an issue involves a truly political and non -justiciable
question lies in the answer to the question of whether there are
constitutionally imposed limits on powers or functions conferred
upon political bodies. If there are, then our courts are duty-bound to this right. The impending threat of criminal litigation is enough to
examine whether the branch or instrumentality of the government curtail petitioners’ speech.
properly acted within such limits.
In the context of this case, exhaustion of their administrative
A political question will not be considered justiciable if there are no remedies as COMELEC suggested in their pleadings prolongs the
constitutionally imposed limits on powers or functions conferred violation of their freedom of speech.
upon political bodies. Hence, the existence of constitutionally
imposed limits justifies subjecting the official actions of the body to Third Issue
the scrutiny and review of this court.
In this case, the Bill of Rights gives the utmost deference to the right Respondents cite the Constitution, laws, and jurisprudence to
to free speech. Any instance that this right may be abridged support their position that they had the power to regulate the
demands judicial scrutiny. It does not fall squarely into any doubt tarpaulin. However, the Court held that all of these provisions
that a political question brings. pertain to candidates and political parties. Petitioners are not
candidates. Neither do they belong to any political party. COMELEC
Second Issue does not have the authority to regulate the enjoyment of the
preferred right to freedom of expression exercised by a non-
The Court held that the argument on exhaustion of administrative candidate in this case.
remedies is not proper in this case.
Fourth Issue
Despite the alleged non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, it is
clear that the controversy is already ripe for adjudication. Ripeness The Court held that every citizen’s expression with political
is the “prerequisite that something had by then been accomplished consequences enjoys a high degree of protection.
or performed by either branch or in this case, organ of government
before a court may come into the picture.” Moreover, the respondent’s argument that the tarpaulin is election
propaganda, being petitioners’ way of endorsing candidates who
Petitioners’ exercise of their right to speech, given the message and voted against the RH Law and rejecting those who voted for it, holds
their medium, had understandable relevance especially during the no water.
elections. COMELEC’s letter threatening the filing of the election
offense against petitioners is already an actionable infringement of The Court held that while the tarpaulin may influence the success or
failure of the named candidates and political parties, this does not
necessarily mean it is election propaganda. The tarpaulin was not
paid for or posted “in return for consideration” by any candidate, Under this rule, “the evil consequences sought to be prevented must
political party, or party-list group. be substantive, ‘extremely serious and the degree of imminence
extremely high.’” “Only when the challenged act has overcome the
By interpreting the law, it is clear that personal opinions are not clear and present danger rule will it pass constitutional muster, with
included, while sponsored messages are covered. The content of the the government having the burden of overcoming the presumed
tarpaulin is a political speech unconstitutionality.”

Political speech refers to speech “both intended and received as a Even with the clear and present danger test, respondents failed to
contribution to public deliberation about some issue,” “fostering justify the regulation. There is no compelling and substantial state
informed and civic minded deliberation.” On the other hand, interest endangered by the posting of the tarpaulin as to justify
commercial speech has been defined as speech that does “no more curtailment of the right of freedom of expression. There is no reason
than propose a commercial transaction.” The expression resulting for the state to minimize the right of non-candidate petitioners to
from the content of the tarpaulin is, however, definitely political post the tarpaulin in their private property. The size of the tarpaulin
speech. does not affect anyone else’s constitutional rights.
Sixth Issue
Fifth Issue
The Court held that even though the tarpaulin is readily seen by the
Content-based restraint or censorship refers to restrictions “based public, the tarpaulin remains the private property of petitioners.
on the subject matter of the utterance or speech.” In contrast, Their right to use their property is likewise protected by the
content-neutral regulation includes controls merely on the incidents Constitution.
of the speech such as time, place, or manner of the speech.
Any regulation, therefore, which operates as an effective
The Court held that the regulation involved at bar is content-based. confiscation of private property or constitutes an arbitrary or
The tarpaulin content is not easily divorced from the size of its unreasonable infringement of property rights is void, because it is
medium. repugnant to the constitutional guaranties of due process and equal
protection of the laws.
Content-based regulation bears a heavy presumption of invalidity,
and this court has used the clear and present danger rule as measure. The Court in Adiong case held that a restriction that regulates where
decals and stickers should be posted is “so broad that it
encompasses even the citizen’s private property.” Consequently, it state involvement an atmosphere in which voluntary religious
violates Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution which provides that exercise may flourish.”
no person shall be deprived of his property without due process of
law. Lemon test
A regulation is constitutional when:
Seventh Issue  It has a secular legislative purpose;
 It neither advances nor inhibits religion; and
The Court held that the church doctrines relied upon by petitioners  It does not foster an excessive entanglement with religion.
are not binding upon this court. The position of the Catholic religion
in the Philippines as regards the RH Law does not suffice to qualify Ruling:
the posting by one of its members of a tarpaulin as religious speech
solely on such basis. The enumeration of candidates on the face of WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The temporary
the tarpaulin precludes any doubt as to its nature as speech with restraining order previously issued is hereby made permanent. The
political consequences and not religious speech. act of the COMELEC in issuing the assailed notice dated February 22,
2013 and letter dated February 27, 2013 is declared unconstitutional.
Doctrine of benevolent neutrality- With religion looked upon with
benevolence and not hostility, benevolent neutrality allows b. Highest Court of the Land: The Supreme Court
accommodation of religion under certain circumstances.
Accommodations are government policies that take religion I. The Supreme Court: En Banc and Division
specifically into account not to promote the government’s favored Cases
form of religion, but to allow individuals and groups to exercise their
religion without hindrance. Their purpose or effect therefore is to
remove a burden on, or facilitate the exercise of, a person’s or
institution’s religion. FIRESTONE CERAMICS, petitioner vs. COURT OF APPEALS,
respondent
As Justice Brennan explained, the “government may take religion G.R. No. 127245
into account . . . to exempt, when possible, from generally applicable 28 June 2000
governmental regulation individuals whose religious beliefs and Purisima, J.
practices would otherwise thereby be infringed, or to create without
Article VIII, Section 4, Paragraph 2 -3
 Under Supreme Court Circular No.2- 89, dated Feb. 7, 1989,
All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or amended by the Resolution of November 18, 1993:
executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme
Court en banc, and all other cases which under the Rules of Court are Xxx, the following are considered en banc cases:
required to be heard en banc, including those involving the
constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees, 1. Cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty,
proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other international or executive agreement, law, executive order,
regulations shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of or presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the ordinance, or regulation is in question;
issues in the case and voted thereon. 2. Criminal cases in which the appealed decision imposes the
death penalty;
Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved 3. Cases raising novel questions of law;
with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took 4. Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, consuls;
and in no case without the concurrence of at least three of such 5. Cases involving decisions, resolutions or orders of the Civil
Members. When the required number is not obtained, the case shall Service Commission, Commission on Elections, and
be decided en banc: Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law laid Commission on Audit;
down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may 6. Cases where the penalty to be imposed is the dismissal of a
be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc. judge, officer or employee of the judiciary, disbarment of a
lawyer, or either the suspension of any of them for a period
of more than one (1) year or a fine exceeding P10,000.00 or
both;
Facts: 7. Cases where a doctrine or principle laid down by the court en
banc or in division may be modified or reversed;
99 hectares of land presumptively owned by the Republic of the 8. Cases assigned to a division which in the opinion of at least
Philippines was adjudicated to private individuals by a court alleged three (3) members thereof merit the attention of the court
to be without jurisdiction. Petitioners submitted these consolidated en banc and are acceptable to a majority of the actual
cases to the SC Motions to Refer to the Court En Banc. membership of the court en banc; and
 9. All other cases as the court en banc by a majority of its The finding by the Court constitutes a reason cogent and compelling
actual membership may deem of sufficient importance to enough to warrant the majority ruling that the Court En banc has to
merit its attention. act upon and decide petitioners’ motions for reconsideration.

When the Motions were first brought to the attention of the Court It has to be stressed that where the Court En Banc entertains a case
on March 7, 2000, it opined that since the Third Division had not yet for resolution, it does so without implying that the Division of origin
acted on subject motions to refer the cases to the Banc, it was is incapable of rendering objective and fair justice. The action of the
premature for the Court to resolve the motion. Court simple means that the nature of the cases calls for an en banc
attention and consideration.
On March 8, 2000, the Third Division voted 4 -1 to deny petitioners
motion to transfer the cases to the Banc. On March 14, 2000, the It should also not be concluded that the Court took undue advantage
Court deliberated on the motion and voted 9-5 to accept the cases of sheer voting strength.
for the banc to pass upon in view of the finding that the cases are of
sufficient importance to merit its attention. It was merely guided by the well-studied finding and sustainable
opinion of the majority that; indeed, subject cases are of sufficient
This action of the Court is a legitimate and valid exercise of its importance meriting the action and decision of the whole Court.
RESIDUAL POWER within the contemplation of paragraph 9 of the Taking into account the importance of these cases and the issues
Resolution En Banc of November 18, 1993, which reads: "All other raised, let alone the enormous value of the area in litigation, which
cases as the court en banc by a majority of its actual membership is claimed as government property, there is merit in the prayer of
may deem of sufficient importance to merit its attention." petitioners that their pending motions for reconsideration should be
resolved by the Court En Banc.

Issues: Ruling:

Whether or not the nine justices who voted to treat the WHEREFORE, these consolidated cases are considered and treated
consolidated cases as En Banc cases did not have any cogent or as en banc cases; and petitioner’s motions for reconsideration are
compelling reason for such action. (No) hereby set for oral argument on July 18, 2000, at 11:00 a.m.

Held:
II. The Supreme Court: Rule-Making Powers
 reportedly taking advantage of his official position, persuaded the
FABIAN, petitioner vs. DESIERTO, respondent petitioner into having an
G.R. No. 129742 amorous relationship with him. Their affair lasted for some time, in
16 September 1998 the course of which private respondent gifted PROMAT with public
Regalado, J.: works contracts and interceded for the corporation’s problems.
Because of some misunderstanding and unpleasant incidents,
Art. VIII, Sec. 5, Par. 5: Fabian wanted to terminate their relationship, but Agustin
threatened her not to.
Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of Fabian then filed an administrative case against Agustin with the
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, Ombudsman, but Agustin was eventually exonerated.
the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal Fabian argues that Sec 27, of RA 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989)
assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a allows that all decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman may be
simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of appealed to the SC by filing a petition for certiorari within ten days
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not from receipt of the written notice. She also argues that the
diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure Ombudsman cannot restrict the right to appeal and cannot limit the
of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective power of review of the SC.
unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Facts: Whether or not Sec. 27 of RA 6670 is unconstitutional. (Yes)

Fabian was the major stockholder and president of PROMAT Held:

Construction Development Corporation, which was engaged in a
business transaction with Nestor Agustin, the incumbent District Sec. 30, Art 6 of the 1987 Constitution provides that no law shall be
Engineer of the First Manila Engineering District (FMED). passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the SC as provided in
this Constitution without its advice and concurrence.
PROMAT participated in the bidding for government construction
projects including those under the FMED, and respondent,
Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 cannot validly authorize an Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to
appeal to this Court from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman the Court of Appeals.
in administrative disciplinary cases. It consequently violates the
proscription in Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution against a law Ruling:
which increases the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. The
constitutional prohibition was intended to give this Court a measure WHEREFORE, Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act
of control over cases placed under its appellate jurisdiction. of 1989), together with Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No.
Otherwise, the indiscriminate enactment of legislation enlarging its 07 (Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman), and any
appellate jurisdiction would unnecessarily burden the Court. other provision of law or issuance implementing the aforesaid Act
and insofar as they provide for appeals in administrative disciplinary
The very provision cited by the petitioner does not include quasi- cases from the Office of the Ombudsman to the Supreme Court, are
judicial agencies such as the OMB. Under the present Rule 45, hereby declared INVALID and of no further force and effect.
appeals may be brought through a petition for review on certiorari
but only from judgments and final orders of the courts. Appeals from The instant petition is hereby referred and transferred to the Court
judgments and final orders of quasi-judicial agencies are now of Appeals for final disposition, with said petition to be considered
required to be brought to the Court of Appeals on a verified petition by the Court of Appeals pro hac vice as a petition for review under
for review which was precisely formulated and adopted to provide Rule 43, without prejudice to its requiring the parties to submit such
for a uniform rule of appellate procedure for quasi- judicial agencies. amended or supplemental pleadings and additional documents or
records as it may deem necessary and proper.
Furthermore, the legislative background of RA 6770 shows that the
Conference Committee Report was aware of the provisions of SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, petitioner vs. MANALO,
Section 30, Article III of the Constitution. It also reveals that Senator respondent
Edgardo Angara, as a co-author and the principal sponsor of the bill G.R. No. 180906
admitted that the said provision will expand this Court's jurisdiction, 7 October 2008
and that the Committee on Justice and Human Rights had not Puno, C.J.:
consulted this Court on the matter.
Art. VIII, Sec. 5, Par. 5:
Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 should be struck down as
unconstitutional and appeals from decisions of the Office of the Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts,
the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal On October 25, 2007, the Court resolved to treat the August 23, 2007
assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a Petition as a petition under the Amparo Rule
simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not Circumstances
diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure
of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective On 14 February 2006, at past noon, Raymond Manalo (hereafter
unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. referred to as “Raymond”) and Reynaldo Manalo (hereafter referred
to as “Reynaldo”) were abducted by military men belonging to the
Facts: Citizen Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU) on the suspicion
that they were members and supporters of the New People’s Army
Procedural (NPA). After eighteen (18) months of detention and torture, the
brothers escaped on 13 August 2007. On 23 August 2007, Raymond
This case was originally a Petition for Prohibition, Injunction, and and Reynaldo filed a Petition for Prohibition, Injunction, and
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) filed before this Court by herein Temporary Restraining Order before the Supreme Court to stop the
respondents to stop herein petitioners and/or their officers and military officers and agents from depriving them of their right to
agents from depriving them of their right to liberty and other basic liberty and other basic rights. In a Resolution dated 24 August 2007,
rights. the Supreme Court ordered the Secretary of the Department of
National Defense and the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the
While the August 23, 2007 Petition was pending, the Rule on the Writ Philippines (AFP), their agents, representatives, or persons acting in
of Amparo took effect on October 24, 2007. Respondents filed a their stead, and further enjoined them from causing the arrest of
Manifestation and Omnibus Motion to Treat Existing Petition as Raymond and Reynaldo. Forthwith, they filed a Manifestation and
Amparo Omnibus Motion to Treat Existing Petition as Amparo Petition, to
Admit Supporting Affidavits, and to Grant Interim and Final Amparo
Petition, to Admit Supporting Affidavits, and to Grant Interim and Reliefs. While the aforementioned case was pending, the Rule on the
Final Amparo Reliefs. They prayed, among others, that: Writ of Amparo took effect on 24 October 2007. Raymond and
(1) the petition be considered a Petition for the Writ of Amparo under Reynaldo subsequently filed a manifestation and omnibus motion to
Sec. 26 of the Amparo Rule; (2) they be granted the interim reliefs treat their existing petition as amparo petition. On 25 October 2007,
allowed by the Amparo Rule and all other reliefs prayed for in the the Supreme Court resolved to treat the 23 August 2007 Petition as
petition but not covered by the Amparo Rule; a petition under the Amparo Rule. The Supreme Court likewise
granted the Writ of Amparo and remanded the petition to the Court
of Appeals to conduct the summary hearing and decide the petition. are implicated, the hesitation of witnesses to surface and testify
On 26 December 2007, the Court of Appeals granted the privilege of against them comes as no surprise.
the writ of amparo. The Court of Appeals ordered the Secretary of
National Defense and the Chief of Staff of the AFP to furnish the ON RIGHT TO SECURITY AS A GROUND FOR AMPARO
Manalos and the court with all official and unofficial investigation PETITION
reports as to the custody of Raymond and Reynaldo, confirm the
present places of official assignment of two military officials Permutations of the Right to Security – A closer look at the right to
involved, and produce all medical reports and records of security of person would yield various permutations of the exercise
of this right. First, the right to security of person is “freedom from
Issues: fear.” In its “whereas” clauses, the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (UDHR) enunciates that “a world in which human beings shall
 Whether or not statements from the victims themselves is enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want
sufficient for amparo petitions. has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common
 Whether or not actual deprivation of liberty is necessary for people.” Some scholars postulate that “freedom from fear” is not
the right to security of a person may be invoked. only an aspirational principle, but essentially an individual
international human right. It is the “right to security of person” as the
Held: word “security” itself means “freedom from fear.” Article 3 of the
UDHR provides, viz: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and
ON EVIDENCE REQUIRED ON AMPARO PETITIONS security of person. xxx Second, the right to security of person is a
guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity or security. Article III,
Effect of the nature of enforced disappearance and torture to the Section II of the 1987 Constitution guarantees that, as a general rule,
quantum of evidence required – With the secret nature of an one’s body cannot be searched or invaded without a search warrant.
enforced disappearance and the torture perpetrated on the victim Physical injuries inflicted in the context of extralegal killings and
during detention, it logically holds that much of the information and enforced disappearances constitute more than a search or invasion
evidence of the ordeal will come from the victims themselves, and of the body. It may constitute dismemberment, physical disabilities,
the veracity of their account will depend on their credibility and and painful physical intrusion. As the degree of physical injury
candidness in their written and/or oral statements. Their statements increases, the danger to life itself escalates. Notably, in criminal law,
can be corroborated by other evidence such as physical evidence left physical injuries constitute a crime against persons because they are
by the torture they suffered or landmarks they can identify in the an affront to the bodily integrity or security of a person. xxx Third,
places where they were detained. Where powerful military officers the right to security of person is a guarantee of protection of one’s
rights by the government. In the context of the writ of amparo, this person appears in conjunction with the right to liberty under Article
right is built into the guarantees of the right to life and liberty under 9, the Committee has ruled that the right to security of person can
Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution and the right to security exist independently of the right to liberty. In other words, there need
of person (as freedom from threat and guarantee of bodily and not necessarily be a deprivation of liberty for the right to security of
psychological integrity) under Article III, Section 2. The right to person to be invoked
security of person in this third sense is a corollary of the policy that .
the State “guarantees full respect for human rights” under Article II, BRIEF BACKGROUND OF AMPARO:
Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution. As the government is the chief
guarantor of order and security, the Constitutional guarantee of the The adoption of the Amparo Rule surfaced as a recurring proposition
rights to life, liberty and security of person is rendered ineffective if in the recommendations that resulted from a two-day National
government does not afford protection to these rights especially Consultative Summit on Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced
when they are under threat. Protection includes conducting Disappearances sponsored by the Court on July 16-17, 2007. The
effective investigations, organization of the government apparatus Summit was envisioned to provide a broad and fact-based
to extend protection to victims of extralegal killings or enforced perspective on the issue of extrajudicial killings and enforced
disappearances (or threats thereof) and/or their families and disappearances, hence representatives from all sides of the political
bringing offenders to the bar of justice. Freedom from fear as a right and social spectrum, as well as all the stakeholders in the justice
– In the context of Section 1 of the Amparo Rule, “freedom from system participated in mapping out ways to resolve the crisis.
fear” is the right and any threat to the rights to life, liberty or security
is the actionable wrong. Fear is a state of mind, a reaction; threat is On October 24, 2007, the Court promulgated the Amparo Rule in
a stimulus, a cause of action. Fear caused by the same stimulus can light of the prevalence of extralegal killing and enforced
range from being baseless to well-founded as people react disappearances. It was an exercise for the first time of the Courts
differently. The degree of fear can vary from one person to another expanded power to promulgate rules to protect our people’s
with the variation of the prolificacy of their imagination, strength of constitutional rights, which made its maiden appearance in the 1987
character or past experience with the stimulus. Thus, in the amparo Constitution in response to the Filipino experience of the martial law
context, it is more correct to say that the “right to security” is actually regime. As the Amparo Rule was intended to address the intractable
the “freedom from threat.” Viewed in this light, the “threatened with problem of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, its
violation” Clause in the latter part of Section 1 of the Amparo Rule is coverage, in its present form, is confined to these two instances or
a form of violation of the right to security mentioned in the earlier to threats thereof. Extralegal killings are killings committed without
part of the provision. Deprivation of liberty is not necessary before due process of law, i.e., without legal safeguards or judicial
the right to security may be invoked – While the right to security of proceedings. On the other hand, enforced disappearances are
attended by the following characteristics: an arrest, detention or 10 November 2015
abduction of a person by a government official or organized groups Perlas-Bernabe, J.
or private individuals acting with the direct or indirect acquiescence
of the government; the refusal of the State to disclose the fate or Facts:
whereabouts of the person concerned or a refusal to acknowledge
the deprivation of liberty which places such persons outside the Binay JR. and other public employees and officers of Makati were
protection of law. accused of Plunder and RA 3019 in connection with the Procurement
and construction of the Makati City Hall Parking Building. The
The writ of amparo originated in Mexico. Amparo literally means Ombudsman then conducted fact-finding, submitted an
protection in Spanish. investigation report and filed a complaint charging Binay JR. with six
Administrative cases for Grave Misconduct, Serious Dishonesty and
Ruling: Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and six criminal
cases for violation of Section e of RA 3019, Malversation of Public
In blatant violation of our hard-won guarantees to life, liberty and Funds and Falsification of Public Documents. The Ombudsman then
security, these rights are snuffed out from victims of extralegal placed Binay under preventive suspension for not more than six
killings and enforced disappearances. The writ of amparo is a tool months.
that gives voice to preys of silent guns and prisoners behind secret
walls. Proceedings before the CA

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DISMISSED. The Binay Jr. then filed a petition for certiorari before the CA seeking a
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated December 26, 2007 is nullification of the preventive suspension order and praying for the
affirmed. issuance of a TRO and/or WPI to enjoin its implementation. He also
alleged that he could not be held administratively liable for various
c. Third Level Courts: reasons including his opinion that his re-election as Mayor of Makati
for a second term effectively condoned his administrative liability.
i. Court of Appeals The TRO was eventually granted. A petition for contempt was also
filed by Binay against the Ombudsman and various other officials for
CARPIO-MORALES, petitioner vs. COURT OF APPEALS, deliberately refusing to obey the CA and the CA then gave due to
respondent course to the petition for contempt and directed the Ombudsman to
G.R. No. 217126-27 file her comment.
 A direct resort to certiorari is allowed in in this case. As a general rule
Both parties filed their respective comments and the Ombudsman a motion for reconsideration must first be filed with the lower court
pleaded that the Court abandon the Condon action doctrine, the prior to resorting to certiorari since a motion for reconsideration can
case was then submitted to the Court for resolution. still be considered as a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law.

However, there are certain exceptions to this general rule:

Issues: a. Where the order is a patent nudity such as when the court a
quo has no jurisdiction.
 Whether or not the present petition and not motions for b. Where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings
reconsideration of the assailed CA issuance, is the have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court.
Ombudsman plain, speedy and adequate remedy. (No) c. Where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the
 Whether or not the CA has subject matter jurisdiction over question and any further delay would prejudice the interests
the main petition for certiorari. (Yes) of the Government or of the petitioner or the subject matter
 Whether or not the CA has subject matter jurisdiction to of the action is perishable.
issue a TRO and/or WPI enjoin in the implementation of a d. Where under the circumstances a motion for
preventive suspension order issued by the Ombudsman. reconsideration would be useless.
(Yes) e. Where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is
 Whether or not the CA gravely abused its discretion in extreme urgency for relief.
issuing the TRO and eventually WPI enjoin in the f. Where in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is
implementation of the preventive suspension order against urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is
Binay Jr. based on the condonation doctrine. (No) improbable
 Whether or not the CA’s directive for the Ombudsman to g. Where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullify for
comment on Binay Jr. petition for contempt is improper and lack of due process.
illegal. (Premature Issue) h. Where the proceedings were ex parte or in which the
petitioner had no opportunity to object.
Held: i. Where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public
interest is involved.
First Issue
In this case, there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the rule 45 appeal can only be taken against final decisions or orders of
question and the public interest is involved. The cases involve both lower courts and not against “findings” of quasi-judicial agencies
constitutional and statutory limits of the Office of the Ombudsman, including the Office of the Ombudsman. The case of Fabian v. Desert
the Legislature and the Judiciary and the propriety of the continuous provides that increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Court
application of the condonation doctrine thus it involves an issue of without its advice and concurrence is in violation of Section 30,
transcendental public importance. Thus, the Ombudsman direct Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. Section 14 of RA 6770 attempts
resort to certiorari and prohibition is justified even though no motion to effectively increase the Supreme Court Appellate Jurisdiction
for reconsideration was filed. without its advice and concurrence, therefore it is concluded that the
second paragraph of Section 14 of RA 6770 is unconstitutional.
Second Issue In this case a rule 65 petition for certiorari was filed by Binay Jr before
the CA to nullify the preventive suspension order issued by the
The CA has jurisdiction over the subject matter. The Ombudsman Ombudsman. Daan v. Office of the Ombudsman stated that while a
argument that the CA lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter is special civil action for Certiorari is within the concurrent original
based on Section 14, RA 6770 or the Ombudsman Act. The same jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, such
states: Section 14. Restrictions. - No writ of injunction shall be issued petition should be initially filed with the CA in observance of the
by any court to delay an investigation being conducted by the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Several cases also ruled that a Rule
Ombudsman under this Act, unless there is a prima face evidence 65 petition is the remedy against final and unappealable orders of
that the subject matter of the investigation is outside the jurisdiction the Office of the Ombudsman. Since Section 14 of RA 6770 was
of the Office of the Ombudsman. declared unconstitutional it is concluded that the CA had subject
matter jurisdiction over the petition.

No court shall hear any appeal or application for remedy against the Third Issue
decision or findings of the Ombudsman, except the Supreme Court,
on pure questions of law. The CA has subject matter jurisdiction to issue a TRO and/or WPI
The general rule is that the second paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770 enjoin in the implementation of the a preventive suspension order
bans the whole range of remedies against issuance of the issued by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman argued that the first
Ombudsman by prohibiting both an appeal against any decision or paragraph of Section 14 of RA 6770 in conjunction with the offices
finding of the Ombudsman and any application of remedy against independence under the 1987 Constitution insulated the said Office
the same except for decisions or findings taken to the Supreme from judicial intervention. The constitution envisions the
Court on pure questions of law, in other words a Rule 45 petition. A Ombudsman as an authority to directly check and guard against the
ills, abuses and excesses, of the bureaucracy. From the case of and to declare their acts invalid for lack or excess of jurisdiction
Gonzales III the concept of the Ombudsman independence covers because of grave abuse of discretion.
three things:
Also, the Constitution gave the Court the power to promulgate rules
1. Creation by the Constitution which means that the Office concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights.
cannot be abolished nor its constitutionally specified An example of this is the promulgation of the Rules of Court where
functions and privileges be removed, altered or modified by the provisional remedies of temporary restraining orders (TRO) and
law unless the Constitution itself allows, or an amendment writs of preliminary injunction (WPI) were provided.
thereto is made
2. Fiscal Autonomy which entails freedom to use and dispose In this particular case, the Court ruled that when Congress passed
its funds for purposes germane to its function. the first paragraph of Section 14 of RA 6770, it took away the courts’
3. Insulation from executive supervision and control which power to issue a TRO or WPI to enjoin an investigation conducted by
means that those within the ranks of the Office can only be the Ombudsman, the Congress encroached upon the courts’
disciplined by internal authority. constitutional rule-making authority. This same act does not allow a
court to exercise its full functions.
However, the concept of Ombudsman independence cannot be
invoked to insulate the Ombudsman from judicial power However, the Court considered the policy considerations behind the
constitutionally vested unto the courts. This is because the courts first paragraph of Section 14 of RA 6770. Thus, pending deliberation
are apolitical bodies which may apply justice to all. Thus the on whether or not to adopt the same, The Court under its sole
Ombudsman is not exempt from judicial power. authority over all matters of procedure, deemed it ineffective the
prohibition against courts other than the Supreme Court from
Under Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution the duty of the issuing provisional injunctive writs to enjoin investigations
courts of justice is to settle actual controversies involving rights conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman. Thus, with Congress
which are legally demandable and enforceable and to determine interfering with matters of procedure without the consent of the
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting Court, the CA had the authority to issue the injunctive writs.
to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government. This provision vests in the Fourth Issue
Judiciary particularly the Supreme Court, the power to rule upon
even the wisdom of the decisions of the executive and the legislative In this case the condonation doctrine was deemed abandoned thus
the TRO and the WPI of the CA was given no effect. The purpose of
a preventive suspension order is to prevent the official who is being employees must be accountable to the people at all times and that
suspended from using the powers of his office to influence witnesses public office is a public trust. The LGC provides that an elective
or tamper with records which may be vital in the prosecution of the official may be disciplined, suspended or removed from office for
case against him. In this case, the CA issued a injunctive writ to nullify disloyalty, culpable violation of the Constitution, Dishonesty,
the preventive suspension order because in its opinion, Binay Jr re- oppression, Misconduct in office etc. The LGC also provides that
election in 2013 as City Mayor of Makati condoned any those officials removed from office as a result of an administrative
administrative liability arising from anomalous activities relative to case are disqualified from running for any elective local office.
the Makati Parking Building Project. The CA found it sufficient that
the application of the condonation doctrine was enough to enjoin Through a reading of the 1987 Constitution and other laws including
the implementation of the preventive suspension order. the ones cited above, the Court concluded that the doctrine of
condonation is bereft of legal basis. Accountability is inconsistent
The condonation doctrine originated from the 1959 case of Pascual with the idea that an elective local officials’ administrative liability
v. Hon. Provincial Board of Nevada Ecija. The ratio decidendi of the for a Misconduct committed during a prior term can be wiped off by
condonation doctrine has 3 parts: the fact that he was elected to a second term or another elective
post. There is no support to the statement in the case of Pascual that
1. The penalty of removal may not be extended beyond the the courts would be depriving the electorate of their right to elect
term in which the public officer was elected for each term is their officers if condonation were not to be sanctioned, in other
separate and distinct, also offenses committed, or acts done words there is no legal basis that election implied condonation.
during the previous term are held not to furnish cause for There is also no presumption in any rule of law that the electorate
removal. upon re-election an official, have disregarded or forgave the officials
2. An elective official’s re-election serves as a condonation of faults. The electorate rarely has full knowledge of an official’s
previous Misconduct, cutting the right to remove him for misdeeds since plenty of corrupt acts are shrouded in secrecy.
these aforesaid acts. Condonation cannot be subscribed to because its implied
3. The courts may not deprive the electorate who are assumed forgiveness, which requires knowledge of the acts being forgiven for
to know the life and character of their candidates of their and in the absence of knowledge of these acts there can be no
right to elect officers. condonation.

The Court then concluded that condonation was adopted because In conclusion the Court found no legal basis to continue to adopt the
the legality of the doctrine was never tested against existing legal condonation doctrine in our jurisdiction, yet this abandonment was
norms. The 1987 Constitution provides that all public officers and deemed prospective in its application which means that only cases
after this one would be affected by the abandonment. This was also conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman under the first
done for the reason that judicial decisions applying or interpreting paragraph of the said provision is declared INEFFECTIVE
the laws or the Constitution until reversed shall form part of the legal until the Court adopts the same as part of the rules of
system of the Philippines. procedure through an administrative circular duly issued
therefor;
Fifth Issue b. The condonation doctrine is ABANDONED, but the
abandonment is PROSPECTIVE in effect;
It is still premature for the Court to rule on this issue. The c. The Court of Appeals (CA) is DIRECTED to act on respondent
Ombudsman’s contention is that as an impeachable officer she Jejomar Erwin S. Binay, Jr’s (Binay, Jr.) petition for certiorari
cannot be the subject of a charge for indirect contempt since this in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 139453 in light of the Office of the
penalty is criminal in nature and will result in her effective removal Ombudsman’s supervening issuance of its Joint Decision
from office. However, her being subjected to contempt proceedings dated October 9, 2015 finding Binay, Jr. administratively
in the resolution, makes it clear that even though she is still ordered liable in the six (6) administrative complaints, docketed as
to comment, the CA has not necessarily given due course to Binay Jr OMB-C-A-15-0058, OMB-C-A-15- 0059Ê OMB-C-A-15-
contempt petition. Thus, in this comment, the Ombudsman may 0060Ê OMB-C-A-15-0061, OMB-C-A-15- 0062 and OMB-C-
raise her objections to the contempt proceedings and the CA may A-15-0063; and
still opt to not give due course to the same contempt proceedings. d. After the filing of petitioner Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-
Absent any indication that the contempt petition has been given due Morales’s comment, the CA is DIRECTED to resolve Binay,
course by the CA it would then be premature for the Court to rule on Jr’s petition for contempt in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 139504 with
the issue. utmost dispatch.

Ruling ii. Court of Tax Appeals

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. Under the Republic Act No. 9282 (Third Level Courts: Court of Tax Appeals)
premises of this Decision, the Court resolves as follows: Under R.A. No. 9282:

a. The second paragraph of Section 14 of Republic Act No. 6770 The Court of Tax Appeals was elevated to the same level as the Court
is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL, while the policy against of Appeals, possessing all the inherent powers of a Court of Justice.
the issuance of provisional injunctive writs by courts other
than the Supreme Court to enjoin an investigation
It shall now consist of one (1) Presiding Justice and five (5) Associate Article XI, Section 4 of the Philippine Constitution
Justices. They shall have the same qualifications, ranks, category,
salary, emoluments and other privileges, be subject to the same SECTION 4. The present anti-graft court known as the
inhibitions and disqualifications, and enjoy the same retirements Sandiganbayan shall continue to function and exercise its
and other benefits as those provided for under existing laws for the jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by law.
Presiding Justice and Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals. It
shall sit en banc, or in two (2) divisions with three (3) Justices each. A iii. Sandiganbayann
decision of a division of the CTA may further be appealed by verified
petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court Republic Act No. 8249 (Third Level Courts: Sandiganbayan)
. Under R.A. No. 8249:
(Due to the enactment of RA 9503 on 12 June 2008 and took effect
on 5 July 2008, the organizational structure of the CTA is further Sandiganbayan is a special court, of the same level as the Court of
enlarged by the creation of a Third Division which has three (3) Appeals and possessing all the inherent powers of a court of justice.
additional Justices. Therefore, CTA is now composed of one (1) It shall consist of one (1) presiding justice and (14) fourteen associate
Presiding Justice and eight (8) Associate Justices. The CTA may sit justices who shall be appointed by the President.
en banc or in three (3) divisions with each division consisting of three
(3) Justices.) Before RA 8249 was enacted, the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan was
determined based on the penalty imposable on the offense or
The CTA’s original appellate jurisdiction was expanded to include the offenses charged on the accused. Under RA 8249 Sandiganbayan
following: has jurisdiction regardless of the penalty, so long as the offense
charged was committed by a public officer.
1. Criminal cases involving violations of the NIRC and the Tariff
and Customs Code; To determine whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction, two (2)
2. Decisions of the RTC in local tax cases; criteria must be taken into consideration, namely: (1) The nature of
3. Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals the offense and (2) The salary grade of the public official.
(CBAA) in cases involving the assessment and taxation of
real property; and Sandiganbayan shall have original exclusive jurisdiction over:
4. Collection of internal revenue taxes and customs duties the
assessment of which have already become final. A. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, (Anti-graft and Corrupt
Practices Act)
 state universities or educational institutions or
B. Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Sec. 2, Title VII, Book II of foundations;
the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused 2. Members of Congress and Officials thereof classified as
officials occupying the following positions in the government Grade 27 and up under the Compensation and Classification
whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time Act of 1989;
of the commission of the offense: 3. Members of the Judiciary without prejudice to the provision
1. Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of of the Constitution;
regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade 27 4. Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions,
and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification without prejudice to the provision of the Constitution;
Act of 1989 Republic Act No. 6758) specifically including: 5. All other national and local officials classified as Grade 27
a. Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of and higher under the Compensation and Position
the sangguniang panlalawigan, provincial Classification Act of 1989.
treasurers, assessors, engineers and other provincial
department heads; C. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with
b. City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the other crimes committed in relation to their office by the public
sangguniang panglungsod, city treasurers, officials and employees mentioned above;
assessors, engineers and other department heads; D.) Civil and Criminal Cases filed pursuant to and in connection
c. Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the with EO 1, 2, 14 & 14-A issued in 1986
position of consul and higher;
d. Philippine Army and Air force colonels, naval Sandiganbayan has Concurrent Jurisdiction with the Supreme
captains and all officers of higher rank; Court in:
e. Officers of the PNP while occupying the position of
Provincial Director and those holding the rank of Petitions for issuance of Writ of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari,
Senior Superintendent or higher; habeas corpus, injunction and other ancillary writs and processes in
f. City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants; aid of its appellate jurisdiction; Provided, jurisdiction is not exclusive
officials and the prosecutors in the Office of the of the Supreme Court
Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
g. President, directors or trustees or managers of The Sandiganbayan is vested with Appellate Jurisdiction in: Final
government owned or controlled corporations, judgments, resolutions or orders of the RTC whether in the exercise
of their original or appellate jurisdiction over crimes and civil cases
falling within the original exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
but which were committed by public officers below Salary Grade 27. Duncano allegedly willfully, unlawfully and criminally fail to disclose
in his Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Networth
In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices (SALN) for the year 2002, his financial and business
or accessories with the public officers or employees, including those interests/connection in Documail Provides Corporation and Don Plus
employed in govemment -owned or controlled corporations, they Trading of which he and his family are the registered owners thereof,
shall be tried jointly with said public officers and employees in the and the 1993 Nissan Patrol motor vehicle registered in the name of
proper courts which shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over them. his son VINCENT LOUIS P. DUNCANO which are part of his assets,
Therefore, private individuals can be sued in cases before the to the damage and prejudice of public interest.
Sandiganbayan if they are alleged to be in conspiracy with the public Prior to his arraignment, he filed a Motion to Dismiss With Prayer to
officer. Defer the Issuance of Warrant of Arrest, asserting that under
Presidential Decree 1606 as amend by Section 4 (A) (1) of RA 8249,
Art. XI, Sec. 4: the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction to try and hear a case because
Section. 4. The present anti-graft court known as the he is an official of the executive branch occupying the position of a
Sandiganbayan shall continue to function and exercise its Regional Director but with a compensation that is classified as below
jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by law. Salary Grade 27.

DUNCANO, petitioner vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, respondent The Office of the Special Prosecutor opposed, arguing that he
G.R. No. 191894 qualification as to Salary Grade 27 and higher applies only to officials
15 July 2015 of the executive branch other than the Regional Director and those
Peralta, J.: specifically enumerated. This is so since the term “Regional Director”
and “higher” are separated by the conjunction “and,” which signifies
Facts: that these two positions are different, apart and distinct, words but
are conjoined together “relating one to the other” to give effect to
The petitioner in this case Danilo A. Duncano is the Regional Director the purpose of the law. The fact that the position of Regional
of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) with Salary Grade 26 as Director was specifically mentioned without indication as to its
classified under RA No. 6758. The Office of the Special Prosecutor salary grade signifies the lawmakers’ intention that officials
(OSP), Office of the Ombudsman, filed a criminal case against him occupying such position, regardless of salary grade, fall within the
for the violation of Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Officials and Employees.
The Sandiganbayan Second Division denied the motion, holding The Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over violations of Section 3(a)
that the position of Regional Director is one of those exceptions and (e), Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, unless committed by
where the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction even if such position is not public officials and employees occupying positions of regional
Salary Grade 27. It was opined that Section 4 (A) (1) of R.A No. 8249 director and higher with Salary Grade "27" or higher, under the
unequivocally provides that respondent court has jurisdiction over Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act
officials of the executive branch of the government occupying the No. 6758) in relation to their office. In ruling in favor of its jurisdiction,
position of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as even though petitioner admittedly occupied the position of Director
Salary Grade 27 and higher, of R.A. No. 6758, including those officials II with Salary Grade "26" under the Compensation and Position
who are expressly enumerated in subparagraphs (a) to (g). In support Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), the
of the ruling, this Court’s pronouncements in Inding and Binay v. Sandiganbayan incurred in serious error of jurisdiction, and acted
Sandiganbayan were cited. with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in
suspending petitioner from office, entitling petitioner to the reliefs
Issues: prayed for.

Whether or not, according to P.D. No. 1606, as amended by Section Assistant Chief, Personnel Division of the BIR shows that, although
4 (A) (1) of R.A No. 8249, only Regional Directors with Salary Grade petitioner is a Regional Director of the BIR, his position is classified
of 27 and higher, as classified under R.A. No. 6758, fall within the as Director II with Salary Grade 26. There is no merit in the OSP’s
exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. (Yes) allegation that the petition was prematurely filed on the ground that
respondent court has not yet acquired jurisdiction over the person of
petitioner.

Held:
Ruling:
Petitioner, Duncano is not an executive official with Salary Grade 27
or higher. Neither does he hold any position particularly enumerated WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the instant petition for
in Section 4 (A) (1) (a) to (g). As he correctly argues, his case is, in fact, certiorari is GRANTED. The August 18, 2009 Resolution and
on all fours with Cuyco. February 8, 2010 Order of the Sandiganbayan Second Division,
which denied petitionerÊs Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack
of jurisdiction, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
 (50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and
d. Second Level Courts unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction
over which is conferred upon Metropolitan Trial Courts,
i. Regional Trial Court Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
3. In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where he
Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (Second Level Courts: Regional Trial demand or claim exceeds One hundred thousand pesos
Courts) Under BP Blg. 129: Section 18. Authority to define (P100,000.00) or , in Metro Manila, where such demand or
territory appurtenant to each branch. claim exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (200,000.00);
4. In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where
The Supreme Court shall define the territory over which a branch of the gross value of the estate exceeds One hundred thousand
the Regional Trial Court shall exercise its authority. The territory thus pesos (P100,000.00) or, in probate matters in Metro Manila,
defined shall be deemed to be the territorial area of the branch where such gross value exceeds Two hundred thousand
concerned for purposes of determining the venue of all suits, pesos (200,000.00);
proceedings or actions, whether civil or criminal, as well as 5. In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital
determining the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, relations;
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts over the said branch may exercise 6. In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
appellate jurisdiction. The power herein granted shall be exercised tribunal, person or body exercising jurisdiction or any court,
with a view to making the courts readily accessible to the people of tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
the different parts of the region and making the attendance of functions;
litigants and witnesses as inexpensive as possible. 7. In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the
Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction: Relations Court and of the Courts of Agrarian Relations as
now provided by law; and
1. In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is 8. In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest,
incapable of pecuniary estimation; damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation
2. In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, expenses, and costs or the value of the property in
real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed controversy exceeds One hundred thousand pesos
value of the property involved exceeds Twenty thousand (100,000.00) or, in such other abovementioned items
pesos (P20,000.00) or for civil actions in Metro Manila, exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (200,000.00). (as
where such the value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos amended by R.A. No. 7691*).
Section 20. Jurisdiction in criminal cases. – Regional Trial Courts Section 23. Special jurisdiction to try special cases. – The Supreme
shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not Court may designate certain branches of the Regional Trial Courts to
within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body, except handle exclusively criminal cases, juvenile and domestic relations
those now falling under the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of cases, agrarian cases, urban land reform cases which do not fall
the Sandiganbayan which shall hereafter be exclusively taken under the jurisdiction of quasi-judicial bodies and agencies, and/or
cognizance of by the latter. such other special cases as the Supreme Court may determine in the
interest of a speedy and efficient administration of justice.
Section 21. Original jurisdiction in other cases. – Regional Trial
Courts shall exercise original jurisdiction: Section 24. Special Rules of Procedure. – Whenever a Regional Trial
Court takes cognizance of juvenile and domestic relation cases
1. In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and/or agrarian cases, the special rules of procedure applicable
quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction which may be under present laws to such cases shall continue to be applied, unless
enforced in any part of their respective regions; and subsequently amended by law or by rules of court promulgated by
2. In actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers the Supreme Court.
and consuls.

Section 22. Appellate jurisdiction. – Regional Trial Courts shall

exercise appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by Metropolitan
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial e. First Level Courts
Courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions. Such cases shall be
decided on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings had in i. Municipal Trial Courts; Metropolitan Trial
the court of origin and such memoranda and/or briefs as may be Court
submitted by the parties or required by the Regional Trial Courts.
The decision of the Regional Trial Courts in such cases shall be Republic Act No. 7691 (First Level Courts: Municipal Trial Courts,
appealable by petition for review to the Court of Appeals which may Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts,
give it due course only when the petition shows prima facie that the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities)
lower court has committed an error of fact or law that will warrant a Under R.A. No. 7691:
reversal or modification of the decision or judgment sought to be
reviewed.
Section 2. Section 32 of the same law is hereby amended to read as 1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate
follows: proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of
Sec. 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of the
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does
Criminal Cases. – Except in cases falling within the not exceed one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in
exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and Metro Manila where such personal property, estate, or
of the Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, amount of the demand does not exceed two hundred
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts thousand pesos (P200,00.00), exclusive of interest, damages
shall exercise: of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or costs shall be included in the determination of the filing fees:
municipal ordinances committed within their respective Provided, further, That where there are several claims or
territorial jurisdiction; and causes of actions between the same or different parties,
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the
with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of
of the amount of fine, and regardless of other imposable action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out
accessory or other penalties including the civil liability of the same or different transactions;
arising from such offenses or predicated thereon, 2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and
irrespective of kind, nature, value or amount thereof: unlawful detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases, the
Provided, however, That in offenses involving damage to defendant raises the questions of ownership in his pleadings
property through criminal negligence, they shall have and the question of possession cannot be resolved without
exclusive original jurisdiction thereof. deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall
be resolved only to determine the issue of possession; and
Section 3. Section 33 of the same law is hereby amended to read as
follows: Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to,
or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the
Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in twenty thousand pesos (20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro
Civil Cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed fifty thousand
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That in
cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of such  After a decision has become final and executory, does the
property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent execution enter the exclusive ambit of authority of the
lots. executive department? (No)

4. Jurisdiction Held:

ECHEGARAY, petitioner vs. SECRETARY JUSTICE, respondent First Issue

[Link], 132601
19 January 1999 The Court does not lose jurisdiction of case after a decision has
Puno, J.: become final and executory.

The important part of a litigation is the process of execution of

Facts: decisions where supervening events may change the circumstance
of the parties and compel courts to intervene and adjust the rights of
The Secretary of Justice filed for Urgent Motion for Reconsideration the litigants to prevent unfairness. It is because of these unforeseen,
of the Resolution of the Supreme Court dated January 4, 1990 supervening contingencies that courts have been conceded the
temporarily restraining Echegaray’s execution and Supplemental inherent and necessary power of control of its processes and orders
Motion to Urgent Motion for Reconsideration. to make them conformable to law and justice. It bears repeating that
The Secretary of Justice claims that the decision of the case having what the Court restrained temporarily is the execution of its own
become final and executory, its execution enters the exclusive ambit Decision to give it reasonable time to check its fairness in light of
of authority of the executive authority. The issuance of the TRO may supervening events in Congress as alleged by petitioner. The Court,
be construed as trenching on that sphere of executive authority. It contrary to popular misimpression, did not restrain the effectivity of
further included in its position a copy of the House of a law enacted by Congress.
Representatives’ resolution which advised the branches of
government to immediately implement the re-imposition of the In criminal cases, after the sentence has been pronounced and the
death penalty. period for reopening the same cannot change or alter its judgment.
But it does not follow from this cessation of functions on the part of
Issues: the court with reference to the ending of the cause that the judicial
 Has the Court lost jurisdiction of the case at bar and hence authority terminates by having then passed completely to the
can no longer restrain the execution of Echegaray? (No) Executive. The particulars of the execution itself, which are certainly
not always included in the judgment and writ of execution, in any
event are absolutely under the control of the judicial authority, while WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED insofar as petitioner seeks to
the executive has no power over the person of the convict except to declare the assailed statute (Republic Act No. 8177) as
provide for carrying out of the penalty and to pardon. unconstitutional; but GRANTED insofar as Sections 17 and 19 of the
Rules and Regulations to Implement Republic Act No. 8177 are
Second Issue concerned, which are hereby declared INVALID because (a) Section
17 contravenes Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
After a decision has become final and executory, the execution does Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659; and (b) Section 19 fails to
not enter the exclusive ambit of authority of the executive provide for review and approval of the Lethal Injection Manual by the
department. The Secretary of Justice uses Section 19, Article VII of Secretary of Justice, and unjustifiably makes the manual
the Constitution which reads: Except in cases of impeachment, or as confidential, hence unavailable to interested parties including the
otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President may grant accused/convict and counsel. Respondents are hereby enjoined from
reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and enforcing and implementing Republic Act No. 8177 until the
forfeitures after conviction by final judgment. He shall also have the aforesaid Sections 17 and 19 of the Rules and Regulations to
power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the Implement Republic Act No. 8177 are appropriately amended,
members of the Congress. revised and/or corrected in accordance with this Decision.

The above provision is simply the source of power of the President

to grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons and remit fines and 5. Basis of Decision
forfeitures after conviction by final judgment. The provision,
Article VIII. Section 14. No decision shall be rendered by any court
however, cannot be interpreted as denying the power of courts to
without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the
control the enforcement of their decisions after their finality. In
law on which it is based.
truth, an accused who has been convicted by final judgment still
possesses collateral rights and these rights can be claimed in the
OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION, petitioner vs. COURT
appropriate courts. The suspension of the death sentence is an
OF APPEALS
exercise of judicial power. It is not a usurpation of the presidential
G.R. No. 114323
power of reprieve though its effects are the same — the temporary
23 July 1998
suspension of the execution of the death convict.
Martinez, J.:
Ruling:
Facts: Branch 30 of Surigao City RTC for the enforcement of the of the
foreign court’s judgment.
Petitioner, Oil and Natural Gas Comm. (ONGC) is a foreign
corporation controlled and owned by the Indian government. CLAUSE 15 “All questions, disputes and differences, arising under
Respondent, Pacific Cement Company Inc. (PCCI), is a private out of or in connection with this supply order, shall be subject to the
corporation organized under Philippine Law. exclusive jurisdiction of the court, within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction and the place from which this supply order is situated.”
On February 26, 1983 respondent agreed to supply the petitioner
4,300 metric tons of oil well cement. In consideration therefor, the CLAUSE 16 "All questions and disputes, relating to the meaning of
petitioner paid $477,300.00 through a letter of credit. the specification, designs, drawings and instructions herein before
mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship of the items
The oil well cement was loaded on MV SURUTANA NAVA ship at the ordered or as to any other questions, claim, right or thing
port of Surigao City for delivery at Bombay and Calcutta, India. Due whatsoever, but qualified to "in any way arising or relating to the
to a dispute between the ship owner and the respondent, the cargo supply order/contract, design, drawing, specification, etc.,"
remained in Bangkok and failed to reach its destination. Respondent Issues:
failed to give the 4,300 metric tons of cement despite petitioner’s
demands. They agreed that the respondent will replace the entire  Whether or not the arbitrator had jurisdiction over the
4,300 metric tons of oil well cement with Class “G” cement cost free dispute under Clause 16 of the contract. (Yes)
at the petitioner’s designated port. However, upon inspection, the  Whether or not the non-delivery of the oil well cement is a
Class “G” cement did not conform to the petitioner’s specifications. dispute within Clause 16’s purview. (No)
 Whether or not the memorandum decisions by inferior
On July 23, 1988, arbitrator, Shri N.N. Malhotra, resolved the dispute tribunals can be considered as facts and conclusions of law.
in petitioner’s favor amounting to $899,603.07, Foreign court issued (Yes)
notices to the private respondent for filing objections to the petition.  Whether or not due process was given to the respondent
The private respondent complied and sent its objections dated even if there was no hearing. (Yes)
January 16, 1989. Foreign court refused to admit the private Held:
respondent’s objections for failure to pay the required filing fees, and
thereafter issued an Order on February 7, 1990Private respondent First Issue
refused to pay the amount adjudged by the foreign court as owing
to the petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner filed a complaint with
The arbitrator has jurisdiction over the dispute clause under Clause
16 of their contract. Second Issue

ART. 1373 provides: If some stipulation of any contract should admit Non-delivery of the oil well cement is a matter properly cognizable
of several meanings, it shall be understood as bearing that import by the regular courts as stipulated by the parties in Clause 15 of their
which is most adequate to render it effectual. contract.

ART. 1374 provides: The various stipulations of a contract shall be Doctrine of noscitur a sociis, provides that the supply order/contract
interpreted together, attributing to the doubtful ones that sense in Clause 16 must be construed within its associated words, limited
which may result from all of them taken jointly. only to the design, drawing, instructions, specifications or quality of
This canon of construction states in interpreting a contract as in this the materials of the supply order/contract. Clause 16 should pertain
case, care should be taken that every part must be given effect, as it only to matters involving the technical aspects of the contract. Non-
was enacted by an integrated measure and not as a hodgepodge of delivery of the oil well cement does not fall here but under Clause 15
conflicting provisions. The correct interpretation is to give effect to “All questions, disputes and differences, arising under out of or in
both stipulations in the contract is for Clause 16 to be confined to all connection with this supply order”.
claims or disputes arising from or relating to the design, drawing,
instructions, specifications or quality of the materials of the supply Third Issue
order/contract, and for Clause 15 to cover all other claims or
disputes. Memorandum decisions of inferior tribunals can be considered as
facts and conclusions of law.
The petitioner states that the non-delivery of the oil well cement is
not a proper subject for arbitration, the failure of the replacement Article 8, Section 14 of the Constitution provides that no decision
cement to conform to the specifications of the contract is a matter shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and
clearly falling within the ambit of Clause 16. What was referred to distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
arbitration was the failure of the replacement cargo to conform to
the specifications of the contract (Class “G” cement), a matter clearly In Francisco v. Permskul , this Court held that the Makati RTC’s
within the coverage of Clause 16. memorandum decision is within the ambit of Article 8 Section 14 of
the Constitution. In this case, the foreign court adopted the
Hence, arbitrator has jurisdiction over the dispute due to arbitrator’s findings of facts and law in Award Paper No. 3/B -1. It
“specification” in Clause 16 which is supposed to be Class G cement.
contains an exhaustive discussion of the respective claims and Respondent’s claim that the foreign court violated its right to due
defenses of the parties, and the arbitrator’s evaluation of the same. process when it failed to reply to its queries. Also, when the foreign
court rejected its objections on clearly meritorious grounds does not
Procedural rules of the Civil Court of Dehra Dun, India, state that a violate due process. Due process was not denied for respondent was
valid judgment may be rendered by adopting the arbitrator’s afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard.
findings, and the same must be respected. If the foreign court
mandates that an Order of the Court becomes final and executory
upon failure to pay the necessary docket fees, then Philippine courts
cannot invalidate foreign court’s order because our rules provide
otherwise. Even if Philippine courts cannot invalidate the order of
the foreign court simply because our rules provide otherwise,
6. Judicial and Bar Council
(Award Paper No. 3/B-1) can be considered as facts and conclusions
of law. DE CASTRO, petitioner vs. JBC, respondent
G.R. No. 191002
Fourth Issue
17 March 2010
Bersamin, J.:
Due process was given to respondent even if the foreign court did
not answer their concerns.
Facts:
Due process is the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit
any evidence in support of one’s defense. Denial of opportunity to be Chief Justice Puno’s compulsory retirement on May 17, 2010 will
heard is contrary to due process. There is no violation of due process occur eight days after the presidential election. The JBC began the
even if a hearing did not occur, for the party was given a chance to process for nominations to the office of the Chief Justice.
explain his side of the controversy and he waived his right to do so.
On February 8, 2010, the JBC announced the names of the following
Respondent does not deny that foreign court informed them to file nominees to the public for any complaint or opposition to their
its objections and to pay its corresponding legal fees. Instead of nomination who were namely: Associate Justice Carpio, Associate
paying, respondent asked the foreign court about the correct Justice Corona, Associate Justice Carpio Morales, Associate Justice
amount of fees. Foreign court rejected the private respondent’s Leonardo- De Castro, Associate Justice Brion, and Associate Justice
objection and proceeded to adjudicate upon the petitioner’s claims. Sandoval.
 Each of the petitioners in the seven different petitions have locus
Although the process for filing the position of Chief Justice had standi. Each have demonstrated adequate interest in the outcome
begun, the JBC had not yet submitted to the President its list so that of the controversy. The issues before us are of transcendental
the latter may appoint the next Chief Justice due to the controversy importance to the people as a whole, and to the petitioners in
in this case being unresolved. Because of these acts of the JBC, seven particular. The issue is determinative of the authority of the
different petitions were filed in the Supreme Court which prayed President to appoint not only the successor of the retiring incumbent
either for: (1) the JBC be compelled to submit to the incumbent Chief Justice, but also others who may serve in the Judiciary.
President the list of at least 3 nominees for the position of the next Nevertheless, to dispel any doubt on locus standi, it should be noted
Chief Justice because the President has to appoint the next CJ within that it is within the wide discretion of the Court to waive
90 days from the occurrence of the vacancy in accordance with
Section 4(1), Article 8 of the Constitution; or (2) prevent the JBC from
conducting its search, selection and nomination proceedings for the Second Issue
position of Chief Justice in accordance with the prohibition provided
in Section 15, Article 7. The controversy is ripe for judicial determination. The JBC already
commenced the proceedings for the selection of the nominees for
Issues: the next Chief Justice. Although the position is not yet vacant, the
fact that the JBC began the process of nomination pursuant to its
 Whether or not the petitioners have locus standi or legal rules and practices, although it has yet to decide whether to submit
standing. (Yes) the list of nominees to the incumbent outgoing President or to the
 Whether or not there is justiciable controversy that is ripe for next President, makes the situation ripe for judicial determination,
judicial determination. (Yes) because the next steps are the public interview of the candidates, the
 Whether or not the incumbent President can appoint the preparation of the short list of candidates, and the interview of
next Chief Justice. (Yes) constitutional experts, as may be needed.
 Whether or not mandamus will lie to compel the submission
of the shortlist of nominees by the JBC. (No)
Third Issue
Held:
First Issue: The prohibition under Article 7, Section 15 does not apply to
appointments to fill a vacancy in the Supreme Court or to other
appointments to the Judiciary.
Article 7 refers to the Executive Department while Article 8 refers to to the usage of the word shall - an imperative, operating to impose a
the Judiciary. Had the framers of the Constitution intended to duty that may be enforced. The failure by the President to do so will
extend the prohibition to the appointment of Members of the be a clear disobedience to the Constitution.
Supreme Court, they could have explicitly done so. They could have
easily explicitly written that the prohibition to be equally applicable Furthermore, there cannot be an Acting Chief Justice and the Court
to the appointment of Members of the Supreme Court. Since this because the framers of the Constitution intended the position to be
specification was not done, it reveals that the prohibition against the permanent.
President making appointments within 2 months before the next
presidential elections and up to the end of the President’s term does Fourth Issue
not refer to the Supreme Court.
Sections 14, 15, and 16 of Article 7 are of the same character, in that Writ of mandamus does not lie against the JBC. For mandamus to
they affect the power of the President to appoint. The fact that lie, the following requisites must be present: (a) the plaintiff has a
Sections 14 and 16 refer only to appointments within the Executive clear legal right to the act demanded; (b) it must be the duty of the
Department implies that Section 15 also applies only to the defendant to perform the act, because it is mandated by law; (c) the
Executive Department as well. It is absurd to assume that the defendant unlawfully neglects the performance of the duty enjoined
framers deliberately situated Section 15 between Section 14 and by law; (d) the act to be performed is ministerial, not discretionary;
Section 16, if they intended Section 15 to cover all kinds of and (e) there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate
presidential appointments. remedy in the ordinary course of law.

Furthermore, the framers did not need to extend the prohibition to The duty of the JBC to submit a list of nominees before the start of
appointments in the Judiciary, because the establishment of the JBC the Presidents mandatory 90-day period to appoint is ministerial,
and the process of nomination and screening of candidates for but its selection of the candidates whose names will be in the list to
judicial positions to the unhurried and deliberate prior process of the be submitted to the President lies within their discretion. The object
JBC ensured that there would no longer be midnight appointments of the petitions for mandamus herein should only refer to the duty
to the Judiciary. to submit to the President the list of nominees for every vacancy in
the Judiciary, because in order to constitute unlawful neglect of
The exchanges during deliberations of the Constitutional duty, there must be an unjustified delay in performing that duty. For
Commission on October 8, 1986 further show that the filling of a mandamus to lie against the JBC, therefore, there should be an
vacancy in the Supreme Court within the 90-day period as provided unexplained delay on its part in recommending nominees to the
by Article 8, Section 4(1) was a true mandate for the President due Judiciary, that is, in submitting the list to the President.
 handling of an international arbitration case for the government. In
Thus, there is no sufficient grounds to grant the mandamus against addition, there was also an accusation about Petitioner's alleged
the JBC. It is premature because the JBC still has until May 17, 2010, extra-marital affair, and insider trading.
at the latest, within which to submit the list of nominees to the A newspaper article was later published in the online portal of the
President. Philippine Daily Inquirer, stating that the Court’s Spokesman, Atty.
Theodore Te, revealed that there were actually five (5) nominees
who made it to the JBC shortlist, but one (1) nominee could not be
JARDELEZA, petitioner vs. SERENO, respondent included because of the invocation of Rule 10, Section 2 of the JBC
G.R. No. 213181 rules.
19 August 2014
Mendoza, J.: Jardeleza now contends that his lack of knowledge as to the identity
of his accusers (except for the verbal information conveyed to him
Facts: that Associate Justice Carpio testified against him) and as to the
nature of the very accusations against him caused him to suffer from
Prior to Justice Abad's compulsory retirement, the JBC announced the arbitrary action by the JBC and Chief Justice Sereno.
the opening for application or recommendation for the vacated
position. The JBC received a letter from University of the Philippines' Additionally, he contends that the Unanimity requirement does not
dean nominating petitioner Francis Jardeleza, the incumbent find application when a member of the JBC raises an objection to an
Solicitor General, for the position. applicant's integrity. The lone objector could be completely capable
of taking hostage the entire voting process by the mere expediency
Sometime in June 2014, Jardeleza received phone calls from an of raising an objection.
incumbent member of the JBC, Aurora Lagman. According to her,
Chief Justice Sereno manifested that she would be invoking Chief Justice Sereno’s interpretation of the rule would allow a
Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-0091 against Jardeleza. situation where all that a member has to do to veto other votes,
including majority votes, would be to object to the qualification of a
Associate Justice Carpio appeared before the JBC and disclosed candidate, without need for factual basis.
confidential information which, to Chief Justice Sereno,
characterized his integrity as dubious. According to the JBC, Chief JBC denied that Jardeleza was deprived of due process. Jardeleza
Justice Sereno questioned Jardeleza's ability to discharge the duties was informed by Lagman and De Lima about the nature of the
of his office as shown in a confidential legal memorandum over his accusations; that it relates to his performance during an
international arbitration. It was Jardeleza who refused to respond to to recommend. This holding is not an encroachment on its discretion
the allegations, when he was given the opportunity to. in the nomination process. Actually, its adherence to the precepts of
due process supports and enriches the exercise of its discretion.
JBC also contend that the unanimity rule provides that when the
integrity of the applicant is challenged, the applicant must receive a When an applicant, who vehemently denies the truth of the
unanimous vote to be included in the shortlist. objections, is afforded the chance to protest, the JBC is presented
with a clearer understanding of the situation it faces, thereby
Issues: guarding the body from making an unsound and capricious
 Whether or not due process was afforded to the petitioner assessment of information brought before it. Just the same, to hear
(No) the side of the person challenged complies with the dictates of
 Whether or not the Unanimity Rule is applicable to fairness for the only test that an exercise of discretion must
Jardeleza. (No) surmount is that of soundness. While the JBC vetting proceedings is
Held: "sui generis" and need not be formal or trial type, they must meet
the minimum requirements of due process. As always, an applicant
First Issue should be given a reasonable opportunity and time to be heard on
the charges against him or her, if there are any.
The right to due process is available and is demandable as a matter
of right. The Court does not brush aside the unique and special Jardeleza was not afforded due process because he was neither
nature of JBC proceedings. Indeed, they are distinct from criminal formally informed of the questions on his integrity (he was only
proceedings where the finding of guilt or innocence of the accused is informed about a general accusation on his legal strategy in the
sine qua non. The JBC’s constitutional duty to recommend qualified international arbitration) nor was he provided a reasonable
nominees to the President cannot be compared to the duty of the opportunity to prepare his defense.
courts of law to determine the commission of an offense and ascribe
the same to an accused, consistent with established rules on Second Issue
evidence. Even the quantum of evidence required in criminal cases is
far from the discretion accorded to the JBC. The purpose of the JBC’s existence is indubitably rooted in the
categorical constitutional declaration that"[a] member of the
The Court subscribes to the view that in cases where an objection to judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity,
an applicant’s qualifications is raised, the observance of due process and independence." To ensure the fulfillment of these standards in
neither negates nor renders illusory the fulfillment of the duty of JBC every member of the Judiciary, the JBC has been tasked to screen
aspiring judges and justices, among others, making certain that the Jardeleza, as it might have been a collective idea by the legal team
nominees submitted to the President are all qualified and suitably which initially sought a different manner of presenting the country’s
best for appointment. arguments, and there was no showing either of a corrupt purpose on
Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 envisions only a situation where an his part.
applicant’s moral fitness is challenged. It follows then that the
"unanimity rule" only comes into operation when the moral Nevertheless, the rule applies due to the alleged accusation that
character of a person is put in issue. It finds no application where the Jardeleza has an extra-marital affair and has engaged in insider
question is essentially unrelated to an applicant’s moral uprightness. trading. These acts impute a weakness in one's values, self-control,
and on the whole, sense of honor because it erodes the public's
Section 2 does not apply to Jardeleza. Sereno claims that the confidence in the Judiciary. It falls under the ambit of questions of
question on Jardeleza's integrity arise from the disagreement in integrity. Even though the rule is applicable, it does not apply in this
legal strategy as expressed by a group of international lawyers. The case due to the deprivation of the petitioner's due process.
invocation of the "unanimity rule" on integrity traces its roots to the
exercise of his discretion as a lawyer and nothing else. No connection
was established linking his choice of a legal strategy to a treacherous B. The Power of Judicial Review: What is Constitutional or
intent to trounce upon the country’s interests or to betray the Unconstitutional?
Constitution. Verily, disagreement in legal opinion is but a normal, if C. Judges: New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
not an essential form of, interaction among members of the legal Judiciary
community. A lawyer has complete discretion on what legal strategy
to employ in a case entrusted to him provided that he lives up to his
duty to serve his client with competence and diligence, and that he
exerts his best efforts to protect the interests of his client within the
bounds of the law.

A legal strategy has no direct bearing on his moral choices. As shown

in the minutes, the other JBC members expressed their reservations
on whether the ground invoked by Chief Justice Sereno could be
classified as a "question of integrity" under Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-
009. These reservations were evidently sourced from the fact that
there was no clear indication that the tactic was a "brainchild" of