November 2011 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Political Law

December 21, 2011Vicente D. Gerochi IV

Here are selected November 2011 rulings of the Su reme !ourt of the "hili

ines on olitical la#.

Constitutional Law $grarian reform% control over agricultural lands. & on revie# of the facts and circumstances, the !ourt concluded that the farm #or'er beneficiaries ()*+s, #ill never have control over the agricultural lands as long as the- remain as stoc'holders of H.I. Since control over agricultural lands must al#a-s be in the hands of the farmers, the !ourt reconsidered its earlier ruling that the /ualified )*+s should be given an o tion to remain as stoc'holders of H.I, inasmuch as these /ualified )*+s #ill never gain control given the resent ro ortion of shareholdings in H.I. $ revisit of H.I0s "ro osal for Stoc' Distribution under !$1" and the Stoc' Distribution 2 tion $greement u on #hich the ro osal #as based reveals that the total assets of H.I is "h"340,335,220, #hile the value of the 5,413.6577 hectares is "h"147,780,000. !onse/uentl-, the share of the farmer9beneficiaries in the H.I ca ital stoc' is 88.247: (147,780,000 divided b340,335.220,% 11;,841,467.;3 H.I shares re resent 88.247:. <hus, even if all the holders of the 11;,841,467.;3 H.I shares unanimousl- vote to remain as H.I stoc'holders, #hich is unli'el-, control #ill never be laced in the hands of the farmer9beneficiaries. !ontrol, of course, means the ma=orit- of 30: lus at least one share of the common shares and other voting shares. $ l-ing the formula to the H.I stoc'holdings, the number of shares that #ill constitute the ma=orit- is 243,112,101 shares (340,335,220 divided b- 2 lus one H.I share,. <he 11;,841,467.;3 shares sub=ect to the SD" a roved b- "$1! substantiall- fall short of the 243,112,101 shares needed b- the )*+s to ac/uire control of H.I. Hence, control can never be attained b- the )*+s. <here is even no assurance that 100: of the 11;,841,467.;3 shares issued to the )*+s #ill all be voted in favor of sta-ing in H.I, ta'ing into account the revious referendum among the farmers #here said shares #ere not voted unanimousl- in favor of retaining the SD". In light of the foregoing consideration, the o tion to remain in H.I granted to the individual )*+s #ill have to be recalled and revo'ed. >oreover, bearing in mind that #ith the revocation of the a roval of the SD", H.I #ill no longer be o erating under SD" and #ill onl- be treated as an ordinar- rivate cor oration% the )*+s #ho remain as stoc'holders of H.I #ill be treated as ordinar- stoc'holders and #ill no longer be under the rotective mantle of 1$ 7736. Hacienda Luisita Incorporated vs. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council, et al., G.R. No. 1711 1. Novem!er "", " 11. !ommand res onsibilit-. 2ne of the issues raised in this case #as #hether or not the "resident, as commander9in9chief of the militar-, can be held res onsible or accountable for e?tra=udicial 'illings and enforced disa earances. <he Su reme !ourt held that the "resident ma- be held res onsible or accountable. <o hold someone liable under the doctrine of command res onsibilit-, the follo#ing elements must obtain@ (a, the e?istence of a su erior9subordinate relationshi bet#een the accused as su erior and the er etrator of the crime as his subordinate% (b, the su erior 'ne# or had reason to 'no# that the crime #as about to be or had been committed% and (c, the su erior failed to ta'e the necessar- and reasonable measures to revent the criminal acts or unish the er etrators thereof. <he "resident, being the commander9in9chief of all armed forces, necessaril- ossesses control over the militar- that /ualifies him as a su erior #ithin the urvie# of the command res onsibilit- doctrine. 2n the issue of 'no#ledge, it must be ointed out that although international tribunals a l- a strict standard of 'no#ledge, i.e., actual 'no#ledge, the same ma- nonetheless be established through circumstantial evidence. In the "hili ines, a more liberal vie# is ado ted and su eriors ma- be charged #ith constructive 'no#ledge. Ano#ledge of the commission of irregularities, crimes or offenses is resumed #hen@ (a, the acts are #ides read #ithin the government official0s area of =urisdiction% (b, the acts have been re eatedl- or regularl- committed #ithin his area of res onsibilit-% or (c, members of his immediate staff or office ersonnel are involved. $s to the issue of failure to revent or unish, it is im ortant to note that as the commander9in9chief of the armed forces, the "resident has the o#er to effectivel- command, control and disci line the militar-. <he Su reme !ourt held, ho#ever, that aside from 1odrigueB0s general averments, there is no iece of evidence that could establish former "resident $rro-o0s res onsibilit- or accountabilit- for his abduction. Neither #as there even a clear attem t to sho# that she should have 'no#n about the violation of his right to life, libertor securit-, or that she had failed to investigate, unish or revent it. In t#e $atter of t#e Petition for t#e %rit of Amparo and Ha!eas &ata in favor of Noriel H. Rodrigue'( Noriel H. Rodrigue' vs. Gloria $acapagal) Arro*o, et al., G.R. No. 1+1, - . G.R. No. 1+/10 . Novem!er 1-, " 11.

C? ro riation% denial of due rocess. In this case, the etitioner argues that it #as de rived of its right to due rocess #hen it #as not given an o ortunit- to resent its evidence. <he etitioner claims that the committee tas'ed b- the court to receive evidence on =ust com ensation did not conduct an- hearing to enable the arties to resent their res ective evidence. Instead, the committee based the 1e ort on documents submitted b- the arties, verifications from offices, ocular ins ections and local mar'et conditions, and unsubstantiated statements as to the highest and best use of the ro erties, and the devaluation of the eso. <he Su reme !ourt held that there #as no such de rivation of due rocess. <he leadings it submitted and the testimonial evidence resented during the several hearings conducted all rove that the etitioner #as given its da- in court. <he !ourt noted that the 1<! acceded to the etitioner0s re/uest, over the res ondents0 ob=ection, for the reconvening of the !ommittee for rece tion of evidence and further roceedings. It also heard and allo#ed both sides to resent evidence during the clarificatorhearings and rendered a decision based on the evidence resented. Repu!lic of t#e P#ilippines vs. 1ps. 2an 1ong 3o4, G.R. No. 1+155,. Novem!er 10, " 11. C? ro riation% valuation of e? ro riated ro ert-. 2ne of the issues in this case #as #hether or not the 1<! and the !$ had sufficient basis in arriving at the /uestioned amount of =ust com ensation of the sub=ect ro erties. <he Su reme !ourt held that even in e? ro riation cases, D/uestions of facts are be-ond the ale of 1ule 53 of the 1ules of !ourt as a etition for revie# ma- onl- raise /uestions of la#. >oreover, factual findings of the trial court, articularl- #hen affirmed b- the !ourt of $ eals, are generallbinding on this !ourt.E <hus, the !ourt affirmed the ruling of the 1<! and the !$ that the 1e ort is founded on evidence. <he etitioner0s ta? declarations, the +I1 Bonal valuation and the deeds of sale it resented are not the onl- roof of the fair value of ro erties. Fonal valuation is =ust one of the indices of the fair mar'et value of real estate. +- itself, this inde? cannot be the sole basis of D=ust com ensationE in e? ro riation cases. Various factors come into la- in the valuation of s ecific ro erties singled out for e? ro riation. <a? values can serve as guides but cannot be absolute substitutes for =ust com ensation. Repu!lic of t#e P#ilippines vs. 1ps. 2an 1ong 3o4,G.R. No. 1+155,. Novem!er 10, " 11. 2 erative fact doctrine. <he o erative fact doctrine does not onl- a l- to la#s subse/uentl- declared unconstitutional or unla#ful, as it also a lies to e?ecutive acts subse/uentl- declared as invalid. <he !ourt re=ected the vie# that the a licabilit- of the o erative fact doctrine should be limited to statutes and rules and regulations issued b- the e?ecutive de artment that are accorded the same status as that of a statute or those #hich are /uasi9legislative in nature. *hile orders, rules and regulations issued b- the "resident or the e?ecutive branch have fi?ed definitions and meaning in the $dministrative !ode and =uris rudence, the hrase De?ecutive actE does not have such s ecific definition under e?isting la#s. <he term De?ecutive actE is broad enough to encom ass decisions of administrative bodies and agencies under the e?ecutive de artment #hich are subse/uentl- revo'ed b- the agenc- in /uestion or nullified b- the !ourt. Cven assuming that the o erative fact doctrine a lies onl- to e?ecutive issuances li'e orders and rules and regulations, said rinci le can nonetheless be a lied, b- analog-, to decisions made b- the "resident or the agencies under the e?ecutive de artment. <his doctrine, in the interest of =ustice and e/uit-, can be a lied liberall- and in a broad sense to encom ass said decisions of the e?ecutive branch. In 'ee ing #ith the demands of e/uit-, the !ourt can a l- the o erative fact doctrine to acts and conse/uences that resulted from the reliance not onl- on a la# or e?ecutive act #hich is /uasi9legislative in nature but also on decisions or orders of the e?ecutive branch #hich #ere later nullified. <his !ourt is not unmindful that such acts and conse/uences must be recogniBed in the higher interest of =ustice, e/uit- and fairness. Significantl-, a decision made b- the "resident or the administrative agencies has to be com lied #ith because it has the force and effect of la#, s ringing from the o#ers of the "resident under the !onstitution and e?isting la#s. "rior to the nullification or recall of said decision, it ma- have roduced acts and conse/uences in conformit- to and in reliance of said decision, #hich must be res ected. Hacienda Luisita Incorporated vs. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council, et al., G.R. No. 1711 1. Novem!er "", " 11. "residential immunit- from suit% non9sitting resident. <he !ourt of $ eals found res ondents in G.1. No. 141;03 G #ith the e?ce tion of !alog, "alac ac or Harr- G to be accountable for the violations of 1odrigueB0s right to life, libert- and securit- committed b- the 16 th Infantr- +attalion, 3th Infantr- Division of the "hili ine $rm-. It, ho#ever, dismissed the etition #ith res ect to former "resident $rro-o on account of her residential immunit- from suit. 1egarding this issue, the Su reme !ourt held that a non9sitting "resident does not en=o- immunit- from suit, even for acts committed during the latter0s tenure. <hus, the rationale for the !$0s dro ing of the case against former "resident $rro-o no longer e?ists in the resent case. It #ill be anomalous to hold that immunit- is an inoculation from liabilit- for unla#ful acts and

omissions. <he rule is that unla#ful acts of ublic officials are not acts of the State and the officer #ho acts illegall- is not acting as such but stands in the same footing as an- other tres asser. <he intent of the framers of the !onstitution is clear that the immunit- of the resident from suit is concurrent onl- #ith his tenure and not his term. $ l-ing the foregoing rationale to this case, it is clear that former "resident $rro-o cannot use the residential immunit- from suit to shield herself from =udicial scrutin- that #ould assess #hether, #ithin the conte?t of amparo roceedings, she #as res onsible or accountable for the abduction of 1odrigueB. In t#e $atter of t#e Petition for t#e %rit of Amparo and Ha!eas &ata in favor of Noriel H. Rodrigue'( Noriel H. Rodrigue' vs. Gloria $acapagal)Arro*o, et al., G.R. No. 1+1, - . G.R. No. 1+/10 . Novem!er 1-, " 11. <a'ing and =ust com ensation in agrarian reform. <he !ourt maintains its earlier ruling in this case that the date of Dta'ingE is November 21, 14;4, the date #hen "$1! a roved H.I0s Stoc' Distribution "lan (SD", er "$1! 1esolution No. ;491292, in vie# of the fact that this is the time that the farm #or'er beneficiaries ()*+s, #ere considered to have o#ned and ossessed the agricultural lands in Hacienda .uisita. <hese lands became sub=ect of the agrarian reform coverage through the stoc' distribution scheme onl- u on the a roval of the SD". Such a roval is a'in to a notice of coverage ordinaril- issued under com ulsorac/uisition. <he minorit- contends that it is the date of the notice of coverage, that is, Hanuar- 2, 2007, #hich is determinative of the =ust com ensation H.I is entitled to for its e? ro riated lands. <o su ort its contention, it cited numerous cases #here the time of the ta'ing #as rec'oned on the date of the issuance of the notice of coverage. Ho#ever, a erusal of the cases cited b- the minorit- #ould reveal that none of them involved the stoc' distribution scheme. <hus, said cases do not s/uarel- a l- to this case. >oreover, it should be noted that it is recisel- because the stoc' distribution o tion is a distinctive mechanism under 1$ 7736 that it cannot be treated similarl- #ith that of com ulsor- land ac/uisition as these are t#o different modalities under the agrarian reform rogram. In this regard, it should be noted that #hen H.I submitted the SD" to D$1 for a roval, it cannot be gainsaid that the stoc' distribution scheme is clearlH.I0s referred modalit- in order to com l- #ith !$1". $nd #hen the SD" #as a roved, stoc's #ere given to the )*+s in lieu of land distribution. $s a tl- observed b- the minorit- itself, DIiJnstead of e? ro riating lands, #hat the government too' and distributed to the )*+s #ere shares of stoc' of etitioner H.I in ro ortion to the value of the agricultural lands that should have been e? ro riated and turned over to the )*+s.E It cannot, therefore, be denied that u on the a roval of the SD" submitted b- H.I, the agricultural lands of Hacienda .uisita became sub=ect of !$1" coverage. Cvidentl-, the a roval of the SD" too' the lace of a notice of coverage issued under com ulsor- ac/uisition. Hacienda Luisita Incorporated vs. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council, et al., G.R. No. 1711 1. Novem!er "", " 11. Election Law +aranga- elections% three9consecutive term limit rule. >endoBa #as a candidate for 3aranga*!a tain of 3aranga* +alatasan, 2riental >indoro, in the 24 2ctober 2006 3aranga* Clections. "rior thereto, >endoBa had been elected as 3aranga* !a tain of 3aranga* +alatasan for three consecutive terms, on 4 >a- 1445, 12 >a- 1446 and 13 Hul- 2002. 2n 27 2ctober 2006, res ondent Senen !. )amilara ()amilara, filed a "etition to Dis/ualif- >endoBa averring that >endoBa, under Section 2 of 1$ No. 4175, is ineligible to run again for 3aranga* !a tain of3aranga* +alatasan, having been elected and having served in the same osition for three consecutive terms immediatel- rior to the 2006 3aranga* Clections. *hen the case #as brought to the Su reme !ourt, one of the issues >endoBa raised #as the constitutionalit- of the retroactive a lication to the 1445 3aranga* Clections of the three9consecutive term limit rule. <he Su reme !ourt held that the issue has alread- been settled in the case of !2>C.C! v. !ruB. <he !ourt reiterated that no retroactive a lication #as made because the three9term limit has been there all along as earl- as the second !aranga* la# (1$ No. 7764, after the 14;6 !onstitution too' effect% it #as continued under the .ocal Government !ode and can still be found in the current la#. Constancio 6. $endo'a vs. 1enen C. 6amilara . Commission 7lections, G.R. No. 1+1 17. Novem!er 1-, " 11. 82eng t#an4s C#armaine Rose 9. Ha: for assistin