October 2011 Supreme Court Decisions on Political Law

November 14, 2011Vicente D. Gerochi IV

Here are selected October 2011 rulings o the !u"reme #ourt o the $hili""ines on "olitical la%&

Constitutional Law #onstitutionalit' o () 101*+. (e"ublic )ct 101*+ reset the )(,, elections rom )ugust -, 2011, to the second ,onda' o ,a' 201+ and ever' three 'ears therea ter, to coincide %ith the countr'.s regular national and local elections. /he la% also granted the $resident the "o%er to a""oint o icers in charge or the O ice o the )(,, (egional Governor, the (egional Vice0Governor, and the ,embers o the (egional 1egislative )ssembl', %ho %ill hold said o ices until the o icials dul' elected in the ,a' 201+ elections shall have 2uali ied and assumed o ice. In addressing the constitutionalit' o this la%, the #ourt discussed the ollo%ing issues& Does the Constitution mandate the synchronization of elections? 3es. 4hile the #onstitution does not e5"ressl' state that #ongress has to s'nchroni6e national and local elections, the clear intent to%ards this ob7ective can be gleaned rom the /ransitor' $rovisions 8)rticle 9VIII: o the #onstitution, %hich sho% the e5tent to %hich the #onstitutional #ommission, b' deliberatel' ma;ing ad7ustments to the terms o the incumbent o icials, sought to attain s'nchroni6ation o elections. /he ob7ective behind setting a common termination date or all elective o icials, done among others through the shortening the terms o the t%elve %inning senators %ith the least number o votes, is to s'nchroni6e the holding o all uture elections < %hether national or local < to once ever' three 'ears. /his intention inds ull su""ort in the discussions during the #onstitutional #ommission deliberations. /hese #onstitutional #ommission e5changes, read %ith the "rovisions o the /ransitor' $rovisions o the #onstitution, all serve as "atent indicators o the constitutional mandate to hold s'nchroni6ed national and local elections, starting the second ,onda' o ,a', 1==2 and or all the ollo%ing elections. )lthough called regional elections, the )(,, elections should be included among the elections to be s'nchroni6ed as it is a >local? election based on the %ording and structure o the #onstitution. Does the passage of RA 10153 violate Section !" #$ Article %& of the Constitution? No. /hat section "rovides that be ore a bill "assed b' either the House or the !enate can become la%, it must "ass through three readings on se"arate da's. /he e5ce"tion is %hen the $resident certi ies to the necessit' o the bill.s immediate enactment. In this case, the records sho% that the $resident %rote to the !"ea;er o the House o (e"resentatives to certi ' the necessit' o the immediate enactment o a la% s'nchroni6ing the )(,, elections %ith the national and local elections. @ollo%ing 'olentino v( Secretary of )inance, the $resident.s certi ication e5em"ted both the House and the !enate rom having to com"l' %ith the three se"arate readings re2uirement. Does the re*uirement of a superma+ority vote for amendments or revisions to RA ,05violate Section 1 and Section 1!" #$ Article %& of the Constitution and the corollary doctrine on irrepeala.le la/s? 3es. Aven assuming that () =+++ and () 101*+ did in act amend () =0*4 8the #ourt ruled in this case that those t%o la%s did not amend () =0*4:, the su"erma7orit' 82B+: voting re2uirement re2uired under !ection 1, )rticle 9VII o () =0*4 has to be struc; do%n or giving that la% the character o an irre"ealable la% b' re2uiring more than %hat the #onstitution demands. () =0*4 is the !econd Organic )ct o the )(,,, %hich "rovided that the irst )(,, elections %ould be held on the second ,onda' o !e"tember 2001. () =+++ is one o several la%s "rior to () 101*+ that reset the date o the )(,, regional elections. !ection 1C82:, )rticle VI o the #onstitution "rovides that a >ma7orit' o each House shall constitute a 2uorum to do business.? )s long as ma7orit' o the members o the House o (e"resentatives or the !enate are "resent, these bodies have the 2uorum needed to conduct business and hold session. 4ithin a 2uorum, a vote o ma7orit' is generall' su icient to enact la%s or a""rove acts. In contrast, !ection 1, )rticle 9VII o () =0*4 re2uires a vote o no less than 2B+ o the ,embers o the House o

(e"resentatives and o the !enate, voting se"aratel', in order to amend that la%. #learl', this 2B+ voting re2uirement is higher than %hat the #onstitution re2uires or the "assage o bills, and served to restrain the "lenar' "o%ers o #ongress to amend, revise or re"eal the la%s it had "assed. 4hile a su"erma7orit' is not a total ban against a re"eal, it is a limitation in e5cess o %hat the #onstitution re2uires on the "assage o bills and is constitutionall' obno5ious because it signi icantl' constricts the uture legislators. room or action and le5ibilit'. Does the re*uirement of a ple.iscite apply only to the creation of autonomous regions under paragraph $ Section 10$ Article 1 of the Constitution? 3es. () =0*4 enlarged the "lebiscite re2uirement in the #onstitution %ith res"ect to the )(,,. /his enlargement violates !ection 1-, )rticle 9 o the #onstitution. !ection 1- states that a "lebiscite is re2uired onl' or the creation o autonomous regions and or determining %hich "rovinces, cities and geogra"hic areas %ill be included in the autonomous regions. /his means that onl' amendments to, or revisions o , the Organic )ct constitutionall'0essential to the creation o autonomous regions < i(e., those as"ects s"eci icall' mentioned in the #onstitution %hich #ongress must "rovide or in the Organic )ct < re2uire rati ication through a "lebiscite. /hese amendments to the Organic )ct are those that relate to& 8a: the basic structure o the regional governmentD 8b: the region.s 7udicial s'stem, i(e(, the s"ecial courts %ith "ersonal, amil', and "ro"ert' la% 7urisdictionD and, 8c: the grant and e5tent o the legislative "o%ers constitutionall' conceded to the regional government under !ection 20, )rticle 9 o the #onstitution. /he date o the )(,, elections does not all under an' o the matters that the #onstitution s"eci icall' mandated #ongress to "rovide or in the Organic )ct. /here ore, an' change in the date o elections cannot be construed as a substantial amendment o the Organic )ct that %ould re2uire com"liance %ith the "lebiscite re2uirement. Does RA 10153 violate the autonomy granted to the AR22? No. $etitioners argued that %hile s'nchroni6ation ma' be constitutionall' mandated, it cannot be used to de eat or to im"ede the autonom' that the #onstitution granted to the )(,,. $hrased in this manner, one %ould "resume that there e5ists a con lict bet%een t%o recogni6ed #onstitutional mandates < s'nchroni6ation and regional autonom' < such that it is necessar' to choose one over the other. /he #ourt ound this to be an erroneous a""roach that violates a basic "rinci"le in constitutional construction that the #onstitution is to be inter"reted as a %hole, and one mandate should not be given im"ortance over the other e5ce"t %here the "rimac' o one over the other is clear. !'nchroni6ation is an interest that is as constitutionall' entrenched as regional autonom'. /he' are interests that the #ourt should reconcile and give e ect to, in the %a' that #ongress did in () 101*+, %hich "rovides the measure to transit to s'nchroni6ed regional elections %ith the least disturbance on the interests that must be res"ected. $articularl', regional autonom' %ill be res"ected instead o being sidelined, as the la% does not in an' %a' alter, change or modi ' its governing eatures, e5ce"t in a ver' tem"orar' manner and onl' as necessitated b' the attendant circumstances. @urther, %hile autonomous regions are granted "olitical autonom', the ramers o the #onstitution never e2uated autonom' %ith inde"endence. /he )(,, as a regional entit' thus continues to o"erate %ithin the larger rame%or; o the !tate and is still sub7ect to the national "olicies set b' the national government, save onl' or those s"eci ic areas reserved b' the #onstitution or regional autonomous determination. /he autonom' granted to the )(,, cannot be invo;ed to de eat national "olicies and concerns. !ince the s'nchroni6ation o elections is not 7ust a regional concern but a national one, the )(,, is sub7ect to itD the regional autonom' granted to the )(,, cannot be used to e5em"t the region rom having to act in accordance %ith a national "olic' mandated b' no less than the #onstitution. 3iven the constitutional o.+ective of synchronization$ did Congress gravely a.use its discretion or violate the Constitution /hen it addressed through RA 10153 the concomitant pro.lems that the ad+ustment of elections necessarily .rought /ith it? No. /he #ourt here

identi ied the ollo%ing o"tions o"en to #ongress in order to resolve the "roblems& 81: allo% the elective o icials in the )(,, to remain in o ice in a hold over ca"acit' until those elected in the s'nchroni6ed elections assume o iceD 82: hold s"ecial elections in the )(,,, %ith the terms o those elected to e5"ire %hen those elected in the s'nchroni6ed elections assume o iceD or 8+: authori6e the $resident to a""oint o icers in charge, "ursuant to !ection + o () 101*+, until those elected in the s'nchroni6ed elections assume o ice. /he #ourt held that in choosing to grant the $resident the "o%er to a""oint OI#s, #ongress chose the correct o"tion and "assed () 101*+ as a valid la%. Holdover option is unconstitutional. /his o"tion violates !ection -, )rticle 9 o the #onstitution, %hich states that the term o o ice o elective local o icials, e5ce"t baranga' o icials, %hich shall be determined b' la%, shall be three 'ears and no such o icial shall serve or more than three consecutive terms. !ince elective )(,, o icials are local o icials, the' are covered and bound b' the three0'ear term limit "rescribed b' the #onstitutionD #ongress cannot e5tend their term through a la% allo%ing o icials to serve in a holdover ca"acit'. I it %ill be claimed that the holdover "eriod is e ectivel' another term mandated b' #ongress, the net result is or #ongress to create a ne% term and to a""oint the occu"ant or the ne% term. /his vie% < li;e the e5tension o the elective term < is constitutionall' in irm because #ongress cannot do indirectl' %hat it cannot do directl', i(e(, to act in a %a' that %ould e ectivel' e5tend the term o the incumbents. #ongress cannot also create a ne% term and e ectivel' a""oint the occu"ant o the "osition or the ne% term. /his is e ectivel' an act o a""ointment b' #ongress and an unconstitutional intrusion into the constitutional a""ointment "o%er o the $resident. COMELEC has no authorit to order special elections! )nother o"tion "ro"osed b' the "etitioner is or this #ourt to com"el #O,A1A# to immediatel' conduct s"ecial elections "ursuant to !ection * and C o 4atas 5am.ansa 4ilang --1. /he "o%er to i5 the date o elections is essentiall' legislative in nature. #ongress has acted on the )(,, elections b' "ost"oning the scheduled )ugust 2011 elections and setting another date < ,a' 1+, 2011 < or regional elections s'nchroni6ed %ith the "residential, congressional and other local elections. E' so doing, #ongress itsel has madea "olic' decision in the e5ercise o its legislative %isdom that it shall not call s"ecial elections as an ad7ustment measure in s'nchroni6ing the )(,, elections %ith the other elections. ) ter #ongress has so acted, neither the A5ecutive nor the Fudiciar' can act to the contrar' b' ordering s"ecial elections instead at the call o the #O,A1A#. /he #ourt, "articularl', cannot ma;e this call %ithout thereb' su""lanting the legislative decision and e ectivel' legislating. @urther, the constitutional "o%er o #O,A1A#, in contrast %ith the "o%er o #ongress to call or and to set the date o elections, is limited to en orcing and administering all la%s and regulations relative to the conduct o an election. #O,A1A# has no "o%er to call or the holding o s"ecial elections unless "ursuant to a s"eci ic statutor' grant. "he Court has no power to shorten the terms o# elective o##icials! Aven assuming that it is legall' "ermissible or the #ourt to com"el the #O,A1A# to hold s"ecial elections, no legal basis e5ists to rule that the ne%l' elected )(,, o icials shall hold o ice onl' until the )(,, o icials elected in the s'nchroni6ed elections shall have assumed o ice. /he #ourt is not em"o%ered to ad7ust the terms o elective o icials. Eased on the #onstitution, the "o%er to i5 the term o o ice o elective o icials, %hich can be e5ercised onl' in the case o .arangay o icials, is s"eci icall' given to #ongress. Aven #ongress itsel ma' be denied such "o%er, as sho%n %hen the #onstitution shortened the terms o t%elve !enators obtaining the least votes in the 1==2 congressional elections, and e5tended the terms o the $resident and the Vice0$resident in order to s'nchroni6e electionsD #ongress %as not granted this same "o%er. /he settled rule is that terms i5ed b' the #onstitution cannot be changed b' mere statute. ,ore "articularl', not even #ongress and certainl' not the #ourt, has the authorit' to i5 the terms o elective local o icials in the )(,, orless, or more, than the constitutionall' mandated three 'ears, as this tin;ering %ould directl' contravene !ection -, )rticle 9 o the #onstitution. In the same %a' that the term o elective )(,,

o icials cannot be e5tended through a holdover, the term cannot be shortened b' "utting an e5"iration date earlier than the three 'ears that the #onstitution itsel commands. /his is %hat %ill ha""en < a term o less than t%o 'ears < i a call or s"ecial elections shall "revail. Does the grant to the 5resident of the po/er to appoint 6&Cs in AR22 violate the Constitution? No. /he "o%er to a""oint is essentiall' e5ecutive in nature, and the limitations on or 2uali ications to the e5ercise o this "o%er should be strictl' construedD these limitations or 2uali ications must be clearl' stated in order to be recogni6ed. /he a""ointing "o%er is embodied in !ection 1C, )rticle VII o the #onstitution, %hich "ertinentl' states that the $resident shall a""oint all other o icers o the government %hose %hom the $resident ma' be authori6ed b' la% to a""oint. !ince the $resident.s authorit' to a""oint OI#s emanates rom () 101*+, it alls under this grou" o o icials that the $resident can a""oint "ursuant to !ection 1C, )rticle VII o the #onstitution. /hus, the assailed la% rests on clear constitutional basis. I at all, the gravest challenge "osed b' the "etitions to the authorit' to a""oint OI#s under !ection + o () 101*+ is the assertion that the #onstitution re2uires that the )(,, e5ecutive and legislative o icials be >elective and re"resentative o the constituent "olitical units.? /his re2uirement indeed is an e5"ress limitation %hose non0observance in the assailed la% leaves the a""ointment o OI#s constitutionall' de ective. Eut the #ourt said this alleged constitutional "roblem is more a""arent than real and becomes ver' real onl' i () 101*+ %ere to be mista;enl' read as a la% that changes the elective and re"resentative character o )(,, "ositions. () 101*+, ho%ever, does not in an' %a' amend %hat the organic la% o the )(,, sets outs in terms o structure o governance. 4hat () 101*+ in act onl' does is to 7appoint officers8in8charge for the 6ffice of the Regional 3overnor$ Regional %ice 3overnor and 2em.ers of the Regional 9egislative Assem.ly /ho shall perform the functions pertaining to the said offices until the officials duly elected in the 2ay 013 elections shall have *ualified and assumed office(: /his "o%er is ar di erent rom a""ointing elective )(,, o icials or the abbreviated term ending on the assum"tion to o ice o the o icials elected in the ,a' 201+ elections. Given the "lain unconstitutionalit' o "roviding or a holdover and the unavailabilit' o constitutional "ossibilities or lengthening or shortening the term o the elected )(,, o icials, is the choice o the $resident.s "o%er to a""oint < or a i5ed and s"eci ic "eriod as an interim measure, and as allo%ed under !ection 1C, )rticle VII o the #onstitution < an unconstitutional or unreasonable choice or #ongress to ma;eG )dmittedl', the grant o the "o%er to the $resident under other situations or %here the "o%er o a""ointment %ould e5tend be'ond the ad7ustment "eriod or s'nchroni6ation %ould be to oster a government that is not >democratic and re"ublican.? @or then, the "eo"le.s right to choose the leaders to govern them ma' be said to be s'stemicall' %ithdra%n to the "oint o ostering an undemocratic regime. /his is the grant that %ould rontall' breach the >elective and re"resentative? governance re2uirement o !ection 1-, )rticle 9 o the #onstitution. Eut this conclusion %ould not be true under the ver' limited circumstances contem"lated in () 101*+ %here the "eriod is i5ed and, more im"ortant, the terms o governance < both under !ection 1-, )rticle 9 o the #onstitution and () =0*4 < %ill not s'stemicall' be touched nor a ected at all. () =0*4 %ill govern unchanged and continuousl', %ith ull e ect in accordance %ith the #onstitution, save onl' or the interim and tem"orar' measures that s'nchroni6ation o elections re2uires. Vie%ed rom another "ers"ective, s'nchroni6ation %ill tem"oraril' disru"t the election "rocess in a local communit', the )(,,, as %ell as the communit'.s choice o leaders, but this %ill ta;e "lace under a situation o necessit' and as an interim measure in the manner that interim measures have been ado"ted and used in the creation o local government units and the ad7ustments o sub0"rovinces to the status o "rovinces. /hese measures, too, are used in light o the %ider national demand or the s'nchroni6ation o elections

8considered vis8;8vis the regional interests involved:. /he ado"tion o these measures, in other %ords, is no di erent rom the e5ercise b' #ongress o the inherent "olice "o%er o the !tate, %here one o the essential tests is the reasonableness o the interim measure ta;en in light o the given circumstances. @urthermore, the >re"resentative? character o the chosen leaders need not necessaril' be a ected b' the a""ointment o OI#s as this re2uirement is reall' a unction o the a""ointment "rocessD onl' the >elective? as"ect shall be su""lanted b' the a""ointment o OI#s. In this regard, () 101*+ signi icantl' see;s to address concerns arising rom the a""ointments b' "roviding, under !ections +, 4 and * o the assailed la%, concrete terms in the )""ointment o OI#, the ,anner and $rocedure o )""ointing OI#s, and their Huali ications. Datu 2ichael A.as <ida$ etc($ et al( vs( Senate of the 5hilippines$ etc($ et al(=4asari D( 2apupuno vs( Si>to 4rillantes$ etc($ et al(=Rep( ?dcel C( 9agman vs( 5a*uito @( 6choa$ Ar($ etc($ et al(=Almarin Centi 'illah$ et al( vs( 'he Commission on ?lections$ etc($ et al(=Atty( Romulo 4( 2acalintal vs( Commission on ?lections$ et al(=9uis 74aroB: 4iraogo vs( 'he Commission on ?lections$ et al(=Aacinto %( 5aras vs( ?>ecutive Secretary$ et al($ 3(R( @o( 1,! C1=3(R( @o( 1,!305=3(R( @o( 1,C 1=3(R( @o( 1,C 00=3(R( @o( 1,C 0 =3(R( @o( 1,C3, =3(R( @o( 1,C-5-( 6cto.er 10$ 011. OmbudsmanD "o%er to grant immunit'. In this case, "etitioner argues that b' e5cluding the res"ondents in the in ormation, the Ombudsman is engaged in >selective "rosecution? %hich is a clear case o grave abuse o discretion. He claims that be ore the Ombudsman ma' avail o the res"ondents as state %itnesses, the' must be included irst in the in ormation iled %ith the court. /herea ter, the Ombudsman can as; the court or their discharge so that the' can be used as state %itnesses under the conditions laid do%n in !ection 1I, (ule 11= o the (ules o #ourt. /he !u"reme #ourt held "etitioner.s claim to be erroneous. /he Ombudsman has the "o%er to grant immunit' b' itsel and even "rior to the iling o in ormation in court. () No. CII0 ull' recogni6es this "rosecutor' "rerogative b' em"o%ering the Ombudsman to grant immunit', sub7ect to >such terms and conditions? as he ma' determine. /he onl' te5tual limitation im"osed b' la% on this authorit' is the need to ta;e >into account the "ertinent "rovisions o the (ules o #ourt,? < i.e., !ection 1I, (ule 11= o the (ules o #ourt. /he rule under () No. CII0 clari ies that in cases alread' iled %ith the courts, the "rosecution merel' ma;es a "ro"osal and initiates the "rocess o granting immunit' to an accused0%itness in order to use him as a %itness against his co0 accused. I there is an' distinction at all bet%een the "ublic "rosecutor and the Ombudsman in this endeavor, it is in the s"eci icit' o and the higher "riorit' given b' la% to the Ombudsman.s "ur"ose and ob7ective. /his accounts or the Ombudsman.s uni2ue "o%er to grant immunit' b' itsel and even "rior to the iling o in ormation in court, a "o%er that the "ublic "rosecutor himsel generall' does not en7o'. /hus, there %as no grave abuse o discretion in this case. ?rdito Duarto vs( 'he Eon( 6m.udsman Simeon 2arcelo$ et al($ 3(R( @o( 1!,0- ( 6cto.er 5$ 011( $olice "o%erD 6oning. #ongress e5"ressl' granted the cit' government, through the cit' council, "olice "o%er b' virtue o !ection 128oo: o (e"ublic )ct No. *+I, or the (evised #harter o Hue6on #it'. 4ith regard to the "o%er o local government units to issue 6oning ordinances, 7uris"rudence has recogni6ed that the government ma' enact legislation that ma' inter ere %ith "ersonal libert', "ro"ert', la% ul businesses and occu"ations to "romote the general %el are. Ho%ever, the inter erence must be reasonable and not arbitrar'. Eased on the oregoing, the "o%er to establish 6ones or industrial, commercial and residential uses is derived rom the "olice "o%er itsel and is e5ercised or the "rotection and bene it o the residents o a localit'. In this case, it is clear that the "rimar' ob7ectives o the cit' council o Hue6on #it' %hen it issued the 2uestioned ordinance ordering the construction o arcades %ere the health and sa et' o the cit' and its inhabitantsD the "romotion o their "ros"erit'D and the im"rovement o their morals, "eace, good order, com ort, and the convenience. /hese arcades "rovide sa e and convenient "assage along the side%al; or commuters and "edestrians, not 7ust the residents o Hue6on #it'. ,ore

es"eciall' so because the contested "ortion o the building is located on a bus' segment o the cit', in a business 6one along AD!). #onse2uentl', the enactment o the ordinance in this case is %ithin the "o%er o the Sangguniang 5anlungsod o Hue6on #it' and an' resulting burden on those a ected cannot be said to be un7ust. ?milio 3ancayco vs( Cito 3overnment of Duezon City and 2etro 2anila Development Authority=2etro 2anila Development Authority vs( Austice ?milio A( 3ancayco "Retired#$ 3(R( @o( 1CC00C=3(R( @o( 1CC,33( 6cto.er 11$ 011( (ight to "rivac'D unreasonable search and sei6ure. /his case involves a search o o ice com"uter assigned to a government em"lo'ee %ho %as charged administrativel' and eventuall' dismissed rom the service. /he em"lo'ee.s "ersonal iles stored in the com"uter %ere used b' the government em"lo'er as evidence o misconduct. $etitioner 2uestions the legalit' o the search conducted on his o ice com"uter and the co"'ing o his "ersonal iles %ithout his ;no%ledge and consent. He said this search violated his constitutional right to "rivac'. /he right to "rivac' is a acet o the right "rotected b' the guarantee against unreasonable search and sei6ure under !ection 2, )rticle III o the 1=-I #onstitution. (el'ing on J! 7uris"rudence, the #ourt noted that the e5istence o "rivac' right involves a t%o0 old re2uirement& irst, that a "erson has e5hibited an actual 8sub7ective: e5"ectation o "rivac'D and second, that the e5"ectation be one that societ' is "re"ared to recogni6e as reasonable 8ob7ective:. Once the right is established, the ne5t in2uir' is %hether the search alleged to have violated such right %as reasonable. /his "roceeds rom the "rinci"le that the constitutional guarantee under !ection 2, )rticle III, is not a "rohibition o all searches and sei6ures but onl' o unreasonable searches and sei6ures. In the case o searches conducted b' a "ublic em"lo'er, the court needs to balance the invasion o the em"lo'ees. legitimate e5"ectations o "rivac' against the government.s need or su"ervision, control, and the e icient o"eration o the %or;"lace. ) "ublic em"lo'er.s intrusions on the constitutionall' "rotected "rivac' interests o government em"lo'ees or non0investigator', %or;0related "ur"oses, as %ell as or investigations o %or;0related misconduct, should be 7udged b' the standard o reasonableness under all the circumstances. Jnder this reasonableness standard, both the ince"tion and the sco"e o the intrusion must be reasonable. Ordinaril', a search o an em"lo'ee.s o ice b' a su"ervisor %ill be >7usti ied at its ince"tion? %hen there are reasonable grounds or sus"ecting that the search %ill turn u" evidence that the em"lo'ee is guilt' o %or;0related misconduct, or that the search is necessar' or a non0investigator' %or;0related "ur"ose. /he search %ill be "ermissible in its sco"e %hen the measures ado"ted are reasonabl' related to the ob7ectives o the search and not e5cessivel' intrusive in light o the nature o the misconduct. )""l'ing the above standards and "rinci"les, the #ourt then addressed the ollo%ing issues& 81: Did "etitioner have a reasonable e5"ectation o "rivac' in his o ice and com"uter ilesGD and 82: 4as the search authori6ed b' the res"ondent #ivil !ervice #ommission #hair, the co"'ing o the contents o the hard drive on "etitioner.s com"uter, reasonable in its ince"tion and sco"eG Here, the relevant surrounding circumstances to consider include& 81: the em"lo'ee.s relationshi" to the item sei6edD 82: %hether the item %as in the immediate control o the em"lo'ee %hen it %as sei6edD and 8+: %hether the em"lo'ee too; actions to maintain his "rivac' in the item. /he #ourt ans%ered the irst issue in the negative. $etitioner ailed to "rove that he had an actual 8sub7ective: e5"ectation o "rivac' either in his o ice or government0issued com"uter %hich contained his "ersonal iles. $etitioner did not allege that he had a se"arate enclosed o ice %hich he did not share %ith an'one, or that his o ice %as al%a's loc;ed and not o"en to other em"lo'ees or visitors. Neither did he allege that he used "ass%ords or ado"ted an' means to "revent other em"lo'ees rom accessing his com"uter iles. On the contrar', he submits that being in the "ublic assistance o ice o the #!#, he normall' %ould have visitors in his o ice. Aven assuming that "etitioner had at least a sub7ective e5"ectation o "rivac' in his com"uter as he claims, the same is negated b' the "resence o "olic' regulating the use o o ice com"uters( /he #!# had im"lemented a "olic' that "uts its

em"lo'ees on notice that the' have no e5"ectation o "rivac' in an'thing the' create, store, send or receive on the o ice com"uters. Jnder this "olic', the #!# ma' monitor the use o the com"uter resources using both automated or human means. /his im"lies that on0the0 s"ot ins"ections ma' be done to ensure that com"uter resources %ere used onl' or legitimate business "ur"oses. On the second issue, the #ourt ans%ered in the a irmative. /he search o "etitioner.s com"uter iles %as conducted in connection %ith an investigation o %or;0related misconduct. Jnder the acts obtaining, the #ourt held that the search conducted on "etitioner.s com"uter %as 7usti ied at its ince"tion and in sco"e. 4riccio 7RicBy: A( 5ollo vs( Chairperson <arina Constantino8David$ et al($ 3(R( @o( 101001( 6cto.er 10$ 011. $dministrative Law )dministrative agenciesD due "rocess. $rocedural due "rocess is the constitutional standard demanding that notice and an o""ortunit' to be heard be given be ore 7udgment is rendered. )s long as a "art' is given the o""ortunit' to de end his interests in due course, he %ould have no reason to com"lainD the essence o due "rocess is in the o""ortunit' to be heard. ) ormal or trial0t'"e hearing is not al%a's necessar'. In this case, %hile the "etitioner did not "artici"ate in the )ugust 1I, 200C "re0hearing con erence 8des"ite recei"t on )ugust 14, 200C o a a5 co"' o the )ugust 11, 200C order: conducted b' the G!I!, G!I! $resident and General ,anager 4inston Garcia.s decision o @ebruar' 21, 200I dul' considered and discussed the de enses raised in the "leadings iled b' "etitioner.s counsel. @urthermore, %hat negates an' due "rocess in irmit' is the "etitioner.s subse2uent motion or reconsideration %hich cured %hatever de ect the Hearing O icer might have committed in the course o hearing the "etitioner.s case. )gain, Garcia dul' considered the arguments "resented in the "etitioner.s motion or reconsideration %hen he rendered the Fune C, 200I resolution. /hus, the "etitioner %as actuall' heard through his "leadings. 2onico <( &mperial$ Ar( vs( 3overnment Service &nsurance System$ 3(R( @o( 1,1 -( 6cto.er -$ 011( )dministrative agenciesD indings o acts. In this case, "etitioner %as ound to have committed the acts com"lained o , i(e., he a""roved the re2uests or salar' loans o eight G!I! Naga @ield O ice em"lo'ees %ho lac;ed the necessar' contribution re2uirements under $$G No. 1*+0==. Ho%ever, the !u"reme #ourt disagreed %ith the indings o the G!I!, the #!# and the #) that the "etitioner.s acts constituted grave misconduct. 4hile great res"ect is accorded to the actual indings o administrative agencies, the !u"reme #ourt did not characteri6e the o ense committed as grave. No substantial evidence %as adduced to su""ort the elements o >corru"tion,? >clear intent to violate the la%? or > lagrant disregard o established rule? that must be "resent to characteri6e the misconduct as grave. Jnder the circumstances o this case, the !u"reme #ourt did not see the t'"e o o"en de iance and disregard o G!I! rules that the #!# observed. In act, the #!#.s indings on the "etitioner.s actions "rior to the a""roval o the loans negate the "resence o an' intent on the "etitioner.s "art to deliberatel' de ' the "olic' o the G!I!. @irst, G!I! branch managers have been granted in the "ast the authorit' to a""rove loan a""lications be'ond the "rescribed re2uirements o G!I!D second, there %as a customar' lenient "ractice in the a""roval o loans e5ercised b' some branch managers not%ithstanding the e5isting G!I! "olic'D and third, the "etitioner irst sought the a""roval o his immediate su"ervisor be ore acting on the loan a""lications. /hese circumstances run counter to the characteristic lagrant disregard o the rules that grave misconduct re2uires. /hus, the his liabilit' under the given acts %as ound to constitute as sim"le misconduct onl'. 2onico <( &mperial$ Ar( vs( 3overnment Service &nsurance System$ 3(R( @o( 1,1 -( 6cto.er -$ 011( )dministrative "roceedingsD due "rocess. Due "rocess in administrative "roceedings re2uires com"liance %ith the ollo%ing cardinal "rinci"les& 81: the res"ondents. right to a hearing, %hich includes the right to "resent one.s case and submit su""orting evidence, must be observedD 82: the tribunal must consider the evidence "resentedD 8+: the decision

must have some basis to su""ort itsel D 84: there must be substantial evidenceD 8*: the decision must be rendered on the evidence "resented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the "arties a ectedD 8C: in arriving at a decision, the tribunal must have acted on its o%n consideration o the la% and the acts o the controvers' and must not have sim"l' acce"ted the vie%s o a subordinateD and 8I: the decision must be rendered in such manner that res"ondents %ould ;no% the reasons or it and the various issues involved. In the "resent case, the i th re2uirement %as not com"lied %ith. (e'es %as not "ro"erl' a""rised o the evidence o ered against him, %hich %ere eventuall' made the bases o "etitioner.s decision that ound him guilt' o grave misconduct. /he act that (e'es %as able to assail the adverse decision o the "etitioner via a ,otion or (econsideration #um ,otion to !et the #ase or $reliminar' #on erence did not cure the violation o his right to due "rocess in this case. (e'es iled the said motion "recisel' to raise the issue o the violation o his right to due "rocess. )s it %ere, "etitioner rendered its Decision dated !e"tember 24, 2001 on the basis o evidence that %ere not disclosed to (e'es. /hus, it cannot be said that (e'es had a air o""ortunit' to s2uarel' and intelligentl' ans%er the accusations therein or to o er an' rebuttal evidence thereto. 6ffice of the 6m.udsman vs( Antonio '( Reyes$ 3(R( @o( 1C051 ( 6cto.er 5$ 011( Government contractD lac; o a""ro"riation. $etitioner D$4H argues that the contracts %ith res"ondents %ere void or not com"l'ing %ith !ections -* and -C o $residential Decree 144*, or the Government )uditing #ode o the $hili""ines, as amended b' A5ecutive Order No. 2=2. /hese sections re2uire an a""ro"riation or the contracts and a certi ication b' the chie accountant o the agenc' or b' the head o its accounting unit as to the availabilit' o unds. In this case, there %as an a""ro"riation amounting to $h"400 million, %hich %as increased to $h"I00 million. /he unding %as or the rehabilitation o the areas devastated and a ected b' the eru"tion o ,t. $inatubo, %hich included the !acobia0Eamban0$arua (iver or %hich some o the channeling, desilting and di;ing %or;s %ere rendered b' res"ondents. construction com"anies. It %as, ho%ever, undis"uted that there %as no certi ication rom the chie accountant o D$4H regarding the availabilit' o unds or the dis"uted e5"enditure. In s"ite o the lac; o certi ication, ho%ever, the !u"reme #ourt held that 7uris"rudence has consistentl' recogni6ed the rule that "a'ment or services done on account o the government, but based on a void contract, cannot be avoided. /he contract in this case %as not illegal "er se. Department of 5u.lic ForBs and Eigh/ays vs( Ronald ?( Dui/a$ doing under the name 7R(?(D( Construction$: et al($ 3(R( @o( 103---( 6cto.er 1 $ 011( Government construction contractsD "rice escalation. /he issue here is %hether $residential Decree 1*=4 re2uires the contractor to "rove that the "rice increase o construction materials %as due to the direct acts o the government be ore a "rice escalation is granted in a construction contract. $etitioner argues that !ection - o $D 1*=4 re2uires the ollo%ing conditions be ore an ad7ustment o the contract "rice ma' be made& 8i: there %as an increase or a decrease in the cost o labor, e2ui"ment, materials and su""lies or constructionD and 8ii: the increase or decrease is due to the direct acts o the government. $etitioner stresses that res"ondent ailed to sho% the e5istence o these conditions. /he #ourt disagreed. /he contractor does not need to "rove that the increase in construction cost %as due to the direct acts o the government. $D 4*4, %hich %as enacted "rior to $D 1*=4, "rovides 8in relation to ad7ustment o contract "rice or "ublic %or;s "ro7ects: that >increase o "rices o gasoline and other uel oils and o cement shall be considered direct acts o the Government.? #onse2uentl', %hen $D 1*=4 re"roduced the "hrase >direct acts o the government? %ithout su""l'ing a contrar' or di erent de inition, the de inition and coverage "rovided b' the earlier enacted $D 4*4 %ere deemed ado"ted b' the later decree. /hus, "roo o increase in uel or cement "rice during the contract "eriod is enough to 7usti ' a claim or "rice escalation based on such increase. 5hilippine ?conomic zone Authority vs( 3reen Asia Construction G Development Corporation$ etc($ 3(R( @o( 1000!!( 6cto.er 1,$ 011.

,,D)D "o%er to demolish. ,,D) alleges that b' virtue o ,,D) (esolution No. 0202-, !eries o 2002, it is em"o%ered to demolish Fustice Ganca'co.s "ro"ert'. It urther alleges that it demolished the "ro"ert' "ursuant to the Euilding #ode in relation to Ordinance No. 2=04, as amended. Ho%ever, the !u"reme #ourt held that the "o%er to en orce the "rovisions o the Euilding #ode %as lodged in the De"artment o $ublic 4or;s and High%a's, not in ,,D). !ince there %as no evidence that the ,,D) had been delegated b' the D$4H to im"lement the Euilding #ode, it necessaril' had no authorit' to carr' out the demolition. )dditionall', the "enalt' "rescribed b' Ordinance No. 2=04 itsel does not include the demolition o illegall' constructed buildings in case o violations. Instead, it merel' "rescribes a "unishment o a ine or b' im"risonment, or both, at the discretion o the court. /he ordinance itsel clearl' states that it is the regular courts that %ill determine %hether there %as a violation o the ordinance. ?milio 3ancayco vs( Cito 3overnment of Duezon City and 2etro 2anila Development Authority=2etro 2anila Development Authority vs( Austice ?milio A( 3ancayco "Retired#$ 3(R( @o( 1CC00C=3(R( @o( 1CC,33( 6cto.er 11$ 011( Election Law Alection "rotestD ailure to ile "reliminar' con erence brie . In e5ercising its "o%ers and 7urisdiction, as de ined b' its mandate to "rotect the integrit' o elections, the #O,A1A# >must not be strait7ac;eted b' "rocedural rules in resolving election dis"utes.? Here, not%ithstanding the act that "etitioner.s motion or reconsideration %as not veri ied, the #O,A1A# should have considered the merits o the said motion in light o "etitioner.s meritorious claim that he %as not given timel' notice o the date set or the "reliminar' con erence. /he essence o due "rocess is to be a orded a reasonable o""ortunit' to be heard and to submit an' evidence in su""ort o one.s claim or de ense. It is the denial o this o""ortunit' that constitutes violation o due "rocess o la%. $rocedural due "rocess demands "rior notice and hearing. /he act that "etitioner someho% ac2uired ;no%ledge or in ormation o the date set or the "reliminar' con erence b' means other than the o icial notice sent b' the #O,A1A# is not an e5cuse to dismiss his "rotest, because it cannot be denied that he %as not a orded reasonable notice and time to ade2uatel' "re"are or and submit his brie . /his is "recisel' the reason %h' "etitioner %as onl' able to ile his $reliminar' #on erence Erie on the da' o the con erence itsel . Hence, b' den'ing "etitioner.s motion or reconsideration, %ithout ta;ing into consideration the violation o his right to "rocedural due "rocess, the #O,A1A# also guilt' o grave abuse o discretion. Salvador D( %iolago$ Sr( vs( Commission on ?lections and Aoan %( Alarilla$ 3(R( @o( 1,-1-3( 6cto.er -$ 011. Public O##icers $ublic o icersD dishonest'. Good aith is ordinaril' used to describe that state o mind denoting honest' o intention and reedom rom ;no%ledge o circumstances %hich ought to "ut the holder u"on in2uir'. In other %ords, good aith is actuall' a 2uestion o intention. )lthough this is something internal, one can ascertain a "erson.s intention not rom his o%n "rotestation o good aith, %hich is sel 0serving, but rom evidence o his conduct and out%ard acts. In this case, the acts and circumstances surrounding "etitioner.s ac2uisition o the #erti icate o Aligibilit' cast serious doubts on his good aith. He made a deal %ith a retired #!# o icial and acce"ted the #erti icate o Aligibilit' rom the latter.s re"resentative. /hese circumstances reveal "etitioner.s ;no%ledge that the #!# o icial could have "ulled strings in order to obtain his #erti icate o Aligibilit' and have it delivered to his residence. Eesides, %hether some #!# "ersonnel should be held administrativel' liable or alsi 'ing "etitioner.s #erti icate o Aligibilit' is beside the "oint. /he act that someone else alsi ied the certi icate %ill not e5cuse him or ;no%ingl' using the same or his career advancement. /hus, the !u"reme #ourt held that that the #) did not err in a irming the "enalt' o dismissal and all its accessor' "enalties im"osed b' the #!#. Cesar S( Dumduma vs( Civil Service Commission$ 3(R( @o( 10 !0!( 6cto.er -$ 011.