21. Kabataan Party Asst. Representative Raymond Palatino vs.

COMELEC

Facts:

- Petitioners contend that the resolution of COMELEC which adjusted the

deadline of voter registration to an earlier date of October 31 2009 instead of
following the provision of The Voters Registration Act of RA 8189.

- Section 8 of Republic Act 8189 provides that deadline for voters registration
should be 120 days before a regular election and 90 days before a special
election.

- Respondent COMELEC answered that the Constitution and the Omnibus

Election Code confers upon it the power to promulgate rules and regulations
in order to ensure free orderly and honest elections

Issue:

Whether or not the contested resolution of COMELEC is null and void for being
unconstitutional.

Held:

- The Supreme Court held that the COMELEC’s rule making power should be
exercised in accordance with the prevailing law.

- Both R.A. No. 6646, Section 29 and R.A. No. 8436, Section 28 grant the
COMELEC the power to fix other periods and dates for pre-election activities
only if the same cannot be reasonably held within the period
provided by law. This grant of power, however, is for the purpose of
enabling the people to exercise the right of suffrage – the common
underlying policy of RA 8189, RA 6646 and RA 8436.
-
- In the present case, the Court finds no ground to hold that the mandate of
continuing voter registration cannot be reasonably held within the period
provided by RA 8189, Sec. 8 – daily during office hours, except during the
period starting 120 days before the May 10, 2010 regular elections. There is
thus no occasion for the COMELEC to exercise its power to fix other dates or
deadlines therefor.
- COMELEC Resolution No. 8585 is declared null and void insofar as it set the
deadline of voter registration for the May 10, 2010 elections on October 31,
2009. The COMELEC is directed to proceed with dispatch in reopening the
 registration of voters and holding the same until January 9, 2010. This
Decision is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY.

23. Nazareno vs Dumaguete City

Facts:

- An outgoing Mayor Remollo of Dumaguete City promoted 15 city hall

employees, and regularized another 74 city hall employees, including the
herein 52 petitioners.

- On July 2, 2001, Mayor Perdices publicly announced at the flag raising

ceremony at the Dumaguete City Hall grounds that he would not honor the
appointments made by former Mayor Remollo. On the same day, he
instructed the City Administrator, respondent Dominador Dumalag, Jr., to
direct respondent City Assistant Treasurer Erlinda C. Tumongha (now
deceased), to refrain from making any cash disbursements for payments of
petitioners' salary differentials based on their new positions.

- Petitioners sought the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin

respondents from taking any action or issuing any orders nullifying their
appointments.

- Civil Service Commission affirmed the invalidation of the appointments.\

- Petitioners maintain that CSC Resolution No. 010988 is invalid because the
Commission is without authority to issue regulations prohibiting mass
appointments at the local government level.

Issue:

Whether Civil Service Commission had the power to invalidate the appointments.

Held:

- We find that the Civil Service Commission has the authority to issue CSC
Resolution No. 010988 and that the invalidation of petitioners’ appointments
was warranted. Consequently, we affirm the Decision of the Court of Appeals
dated August 28, 2007 and its Resolution dated January 11, 2008 in CA-G.R.
CEB-SP No. 00665. The CSC has the authority to establish rules to promote
efficiency in the civil service.
 - Appointments are banned prior to the elections to ensure that partisan
loyalties will not be a factor in the appointment process, and to prevent
incumbents from gaining any undue advantage during the elections.

- Not all mass appointments are invalid however, it must be shown that the
appointments have undergone the regular screening process, that the
appointee is qualified, that there is a need to fill up the vacancy immediately,
and that the appointments are not in bulk.

- The Accreditation of Dumaguete City did not remove the CSC’s authority to
review appointments .We find that the authority granted by CSC Resolution
No. 992411 to the City Government of Dumaguete to “take final action” on all
its appointments did not deprive the Commission of its authority and duty to
review appointments.

24. Spouses Ortega vs. Cebu City

Facts:

- On May 23, 1994, the Sangguniang Panglungsod of [Cebu City]

enacted City Ordinance No. 1519, giving authority to the City Mayor to
expropriate one-half (1/2) portion (2,856 square meters) of [the
spouses Ortega’s] land (which is occupied by the squatters), and
appropriating for that purpose the amount of P3,284,400.00 or at the
price of ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED FIFTY PESOS (P1,150.00) per
square meter. The amount will be charged against Account No. 8-93-
310, Continuing Appropriation, Account No. 101-8918-334, repurchase
of lots for various projects. The value of the land was determined by
the Cebu City Appraisal Committee in Resolution No. 19, series of
1994, dated April 15, 1994.
- RTC issued an order fixing the value of the land at P11,000 per square meter
and odering the City of Cebu to pay the Ortegas the total amount of
P31,416,000 as just compensation for the expropriated portion of their lot.

- This decision became final and executory for failure of respondents to perfect
an appeal on time.

- In an Omnibus Motion to Stay Execution, respondent contends that the price

set by RTC as just compensation is way beyond its intended beneficiaries for
its socialize housing program.

- RTC also ordered for the garnishment of Cebu City’s Philippine Postal Bank
account.
 - Respondents protest that government funds and properties may not be
seized under writ of execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgment, on
obvious reason of public policy.

Issue:

Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC’s denial of Cebu City’s Omnibus Motion
to Modify Judgment and to be Allowed to Withdraw from the Expropriation
Proceedings.

Whether the deposit of Cebu City with the Philippine Postal Bank, appropriated for a
different purpose by its Sangguniang Panglungsod, can be subject to garnishment
as payment for the expropriated lot covered by City Ordinance No. 1519.

Held:

- On the first issue, the CA did not err in affirming the RTC’s Order that the
expropriation case had long been final and executory. Consequently, both the
Order of expropriation and the Order fixing just compensation by the RTC can
no longer be modified. In short, Cebu City cannot withdraw from the
expropriation proceedings.

- SC held that respondent cannot back out from the expropriation proceedings
because it can not afford the just compensation set by the court.

- Determination of just compensation is a judicial prerogative therefore no

statute, decree, or executive order can mandate that its own determination
shall prevail over the court’s findings.

- On the second issue the Court held that the proper remedy of [the Spouses
Ortega] is to file a mandamus case against [Cebu City] in order to compel its
Sangguniang Panglungsod to enact an appropriation ordinance for the
satisfaction of [the Spouses Ortega’s] claim.

- The nonexistent account said to have been created for the purpose of paying
petitioners is equivalent to a nonexistent appropriation law required to be
able to garnish a government account on the premise that the functions and
public services rendered by the State cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or
disrupted by the diversion of public funds from their legitimate and specific
objects, as appropriated by law.