Facts: Petitioner, Former President Joseph Estrada, the highest-ranking official to be
prosecuted under RA 7080 (An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder),
assailed the constitutionality of the said law based on the following grounds: (1) the
law suffers from vagueness; (2) it dispenses with the reasonable doubt standard in
criminal prosecutions; and (3) it abolishes the element of mens rea or criminal
intent in the crimes already punishable under the Revised Penal Code. The
foregoing, according to Estrada, violated his fundamental rights to due process and
to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
FACTS: Respondent Hermogenes P. Pobre is a former government official who
retires from the government service three times. He first retired as a commissioner
of the Commission on Audit on March 31, 1986. He reentered the government and
retired as a chairman of the board of Accountancy. He was then appointed as
associate commissioner of the Professional Regulation Commission of which he
retired eventually as a chairman. The first two times he retired; he received his
terminal pay both times. On his third retirement, Pobre claimed payment of his
terminal leave based on his highest monthly salary as PRC chairman but to be
reckoned from the date he first entered the government service as budget examiner.
He invoked Section 13 of Commonwealth Act 186. Doubtful of the legality of the
claim, PRC chairperson sought the opinion of both COA and CSC. CSC said however
that all respondent Pobre was entitled to be were his terminal leave benefits based
only on his accrued leave credits from the date of his assumption of office as PRC
chairman and not his total terminal leave credits. On appeal, the CA ruled that it is
the COA who has the jurisdiction and not CSC.
FACTS: Maria J. Angelina G. Matibag questions the constitutionality of the
appointment by President Arroyo of Benipayo (Chairman of the Commission on
Elections), and Bora and Tuason (COMELEC Commissioners). She questions the
legality of appointment by Benipayo of Velma J. Cinco as Director IV of the Comelec’s
EID and reassigning her to the Law department.
Facts: Petitioners claim, that out of their total allocations amounting to
P285,660,790.44 a balance of P5,807,392.30 was left unreleased. According to them,
this balance was intentionally withheld by respondent on the basis of its no report,
no release policy whereby allocations for agencies are withheld pending their
submission of the documents mentioned in Sections 3.8 to 3.10 and Section 7.0 of
National Budget Circular No. 478 on Guidelines on the Release of the FY 2002 Funds.
Thus, violating the principle of fiscal autonomy and, therefore, unconstitutional.
Respondent on the other hand denies having strictly enforced the policy upon
offices vested with fiscal autonomy, it claiming that it has applied by extension to
these offices the Resolution of this Court in A.M. No. 92-9-029-SC (Constitutional
Mandate on the Judiciary’s Fiscal Autonomy) issued on June 3, 1993, particularly one
of the guiding principles established therein governing the budget of the
Judiciary[1]. Respondent proffers at any rate that the delay in releasing the balance
of petitioner’s budget was not on account of any failure on petitioner’s part to
submit the required reports; rather, it was due to a shortfall in revenues.
Facts: This is a quo warranto proceeding instituted by the Solicitor General against
Honorable Domingo Imperial and Honorable Rodrigo Perez, to test the legality of
their continuance in office as Chairman and Member, respectively, of the
Commission on Elections. According to the Solicitor General, the first commissioners
of Elections were duly appointed and qualified on July 12, 1945, with the following
terms of office:
Hon. Jose Lopez Vito, Chairman, for 9 years, expiring on July 12, 1954.
Hon. Francisco Enage, Member, for 6 years, expiring on July 12, 1951.
Hon. Vicente Vera, Member, for 3 years, expiring on July 12, 1948;
Chairman Vito died in May 1947 and Member Vicente de Vera was promoted
Chairman
to serve until July 12, 1954, when the original term of Vito will expire in accordance
with the
ruling of the Court that successors should only serve for the remaining unexpired
term of his predecessor. Chairman Vera then died in August, 1951, before the
expiration of the maximum term of 9 years of Vito. Respondent Imperial was
appointed Chairman to succeed Vera “for a term expiring on July 12, 1960”. The
Solicitor General argues that the term for which Imperial could legally serve as
Chairman legally expired on July 12, 1954, that is, the expiration of the nine-year
term for which the first Chairman, Honorable Jose Lopez Vito, was appointed. The
respondent Perez on the other hand was appointed Member of the Commission on
December 8, 1949, for “term of nine years expiring on November 24, 1958’, when
Enage retired on November, 1949. The SG also argues that the term of office of Perez
legally expired on July 12, 1951, the expiration of the term of six years of
commissioner Enage.
Facts: Sevilla and Gupit were candidates for Punong Barangay of Barangay
Poblacion, Kitcharao, Agusan delNorte, during the 2013 Barangay Elections. After
the canvass of results, Sevilla was proclaimed the winningcandidate. Sevilla received
466 votes, while Gupit garnered 465 votes. Notably, there was a margin of only
onevote. Gupit contested his defeat by filing an election protest, which the MCTC
granted. The Comelec in division and en banc affirmed the MCTC’s ruling.
FACTS: On August 15, 2011, the Comelec and the DOJ issued a Joint Order creating
and constituting a Joint Committee and Fact-Finding Team on the 2004 and 2007
National Elections electoral fraud and manipulation cases In its Initial Report of the
Fact-Finding Team concluded that manipulation of the results in the May 14, 2007
senatorial elections in the provinces of North and South Cotabato, and Maguindanao
was indeed perpetrated. It recommended that Petitioner Benjamin S. Abalos, GMA,
and Mike Arroyo be subjected to preliminary investigation for electoral sabotage and
manipulating the election results. Thereafter, petitioners filed before the Court
separate Petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of a
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction assailing
the creation of the Joint Panel.
On September 18, 2012, the Court rendered the assailed Decision. It ruled that:
1. Fact- Finding Team’s Initial Report dated October 20, 2011, are declared VALID.
However, the Rules of Procedure on the Conduct of Preliminary Investigation on the
Alleged Election Fraud in the 2004 and 2007 National Elections is declared
INEFFECTIVE for lack of publication.
2. The Joint Panel and the proceedings having been conducted in accordance with
Rule 112 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure and Rule 34 of the Comelec Rules of
Procedure, the conduct of the preliminary investigation is hereby declared VALID.
Facts: As a condition to obtain a USD 310M Economic Recovery Loan, the World
Bank required the PH gov't to rehabilitate the DBP. One of the steps required is for
the DBP to be fully audited by external independent auditors. Accordingly, the
Central Bank issued CB Circular 1124 providing that “all Banks, including
government banks, shall be fully audited by external independent auditors.” COA
Chairman Teofisto Guingona interposed no objection on this. DBP hired Joaquin
Cunanan & Co as its private external auditor. DBP sought COA's concurrence to the
contract it entered w/ the private auditor. However, COA, under the new COA
Chairman, Eufemio Domingo, protested the issuance of Circular No. 1124 saying that
it encroaches upon the COA's constitutional and statutory power to audit
government agencies. COA issued a letter-decision denying DBP's note-request
concurrence. COA likewise disallowed any payment to the private auditor by DBP.
DBP appealed to the COA en banc. It denied the appeal. Hence, DBP filed this petition
for review on certiorari.
FACTS: On 26 October 1982, the COA issued Circular No. 82-195, lifting the system
of pre-audit of government financial transactions, albeit with certain exceptions. The
circular affirmed the state policy that all resources of the government shall be
managed, expended or utilized in accordance with law and regulations, and
safeguarded against loss or wastage through illegal or improper disposition, with a
view to ensuring efficiency, economy and effectiveness in the operations of
government. After the change in administration due to the February 1986
revolution, grave irregularities and anomalies in the government’s financial
transactions were uncovered. Hence, on 31 March 1986, the COA issued Circular No.
86-257, which reinstated the pre-audit of selected government transactions. The
selective pre-audit was perceived to be an effective, although temporary, remedy
against the said anomalies. Two years later, or on 22 July 2011, COA issued Circular
No. 2011-002, which lifted the pre-audit of government transactions implemented
by Circular No. 2009002. In its assessment, subsequent developments had shown
heightened vigilance of
government agencies in safeguarding their resources. On 15 January 2008,
petitioner filed this Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. He alleges that the preaudit duty on the part of the COA cannot be lifted by a mere circular, considering that
pre-audit is a constitutional mandate enshrined in Section 2 of Article IX-D of the
1987 Constitution. He further claims that, because of the lack of pre-audit by COA,
serious irregularities in government transactions have been committed, such as the
P728-million fertilizer fund scam, irregularities in the P550- million call center
laboratory project of the Commission on Higher Education, and many others
Facts: Capablanca, acquired a permanent status as Police Officer 1 after taking the
required examinations including the Career Service Professional ExaminationComputer Assisted Test (CSP-CAT) given by the Civil Service, However, it was found
out that the person in the picture pasted in the Picture Seat Plan as well as the
signature therein when he took the exam is different from the person whose picture
and signature is attached in the Personal Data Sheet. CSC conducted preliminary
investigation. Capablanca’s counsel moved to dismiss arguing that the
administrative discipline over police officers falls under the jurisdiction of the PNP
and/or NAPOLCOM.
FACTS: On February 15, 2001, President Arroyo appointed Guillermo Carague
(Carague) as Chairman of the Commission on Audit (COA) for a term of seven (7)
years, pursuant to the 1987 Constitution. Carague’s term of office started on
February 2, 2001 to end on February 2, 2008. Meanwhile, on February 7, 2004,
President Macapagal-Arroyo appointed Reynaldo Villar (Villar) as the third member
of the COA for a term of seven (7) years starting February 2, 2004 until February 2,
2011. Following the retirement of Carague on February 2, 2008 and during the
fourth year of Villar as COA Commissioner, Villar was designated as Acting Chairman
of COA from February 4, 2008 to April 14, 2008. Subsequently, on April 18, 2008,
Villar was nominated and appointed as Chairman of the COA. Shortly thereafter, on
June 11, 2008, the Commission on Appointments confirmed his appointment. He
was to serve as Chairman of COA, as expressly indicated in the appointment papers,
until the expiration of the original term of his office as COA Commissioner or on
February 2, 2011. Challenged in this recourse, Villar, in an obvious bid to lend colour
of title to his hold on the chairmanship, insists that his appointment as COA
Chairman accorded him a fresh term of seven (7) years which is yet to lapse. He
would argue, in fine, that his term of office, as such chairman, is up to February 2,
2015, or 7 years reckoned from February 2, 2008 when he was appointed to that
position.
FACTS: Then president GMA issued EO 864 which allows tge chairman of the CSC to
be in the board of trustees/directors of certain GOCCs. Funa asserts that EO 864 and
Section 14, Chapter 3, Title I-A, Book V of EO 292 violate the independence of the
CSC, which was constitutionally created to be protected from outside influences and
political pressures due to the significance of its government functions. He further
asserts that such independence is violated by the fact that the CSC is not a part of the
Executive Branch of Government while the concerned GOCCs are considered
instrumentalities of the Executive Branch of the Government. In this situation, the
President may exercise his power of control over the CSC considering that the GOCCs
in which Duque sits as Board member are attached to the Executive Department.
Funa claims that EO 864 and Section 14, Chapter 3, Title I-A, Book V of EO 292
violate the prohibition imposed upon members of constitutional commissions from
holding any other office or employment. A conflict of interest may arise in the event
that a Board decision of the GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF concerning
personnel-related matters is elevated to the CSC considering that such GOCCs have
original charters, and their employees are governed by CSC laws, rules and
regulations. Respondents submit that the prohibition against holding any other
office or employment under Section 2, Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution does not
cover positions held without additional compensation in ex officio capacities. */