POLITICAL LAW CASES PENNED BY JUSTICE LUCAS BERSAMIN

1. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved. The presumption of innocence is rooted in the guarantee of
due process, and is safeguarded by the constitutional right to be released on bail,
and further binds the court to wait until after trial to impose any punishment on
the accused.

This national commitment to uphold the fundamental human rights as well as

value the worth and dignity of every person has authorized the grant of bail not
only to those charged in criminal proceedings but also to extraditees upon a clear
and convincing showing: (1) that the detainee will not be a flight risk or a danger
to the community; and (2) that there exist special, humanitarian and compelling
circumstances. In our view, his social and political standing and his having
immediately surrendered to the authorities upon his being charged in court
indicate that the risk of his flight or escape from this jurisdiction is highly
unlikely. His personal disposition from the onset of his indictment for plunder,
formal or otherwise, has demonstrated his utter respect for the legal processes of
this country. We also do not ignore that at an earlier time many years ago when
he had been charged with rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder,
he already evinced a similar personal disposition of respect for the legal
processes, and was granted bail during the pendency of his trial because he was
not seen as a flight risk. With his solid reputation in both his public and his
private lives, his long years of public service, and historys judgment of him being
at stake, he should be granted bail. The currently fragile state of Enriles health
presents another compelling justification for his admission to bail, but which the
Sandiganbayan did not recognize. Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan (Third
Division), 767 SCRA 282, G.R. No. 213847 August 18, 2015

2. It is not disputed that the constitutional right to due process of law cannot be
denied to any accused. The Constitution has expressly ordained that no person
shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. An
essential part of the right is to be afforded a just and fair trial before his
conviction for any crime. Any violation of the right cannot be condoned, for the
impartiality of the judge who sits on and hears a case, and decides it is an
indispensable requisite of procedural due process. Lai vs. People, 761 SCRA
156, G.R. No. 175999 July 1, 2015
Page1
3. As provided in their respective charters, PHILHEALTH and ECC have the status
of a government corporation and are deemed attached to the Department of
Health and the Department of Labor, respectively. On the other hand, the GSIS
and HDMF fall under the Office of the President. The corporate powers of the
GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF are exercised through their governing
Boards, members of which are all appointed by the President of the Philippines.
Undoubtedly, the GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF and the members of
their respective governing Boards are under the control of the President. As such,
the CSC Chairman cannot be a member of a government entity that is under the
control of the President without impairing the independence vested in the CSC by
the 1987 Constitution. Funa vs. Duque III, 742 SCRA 166, G.R. No. 191672
November 25, 2014

4. The putting up of the access fence on the petitioners property was in the valid
exercise of police power, assailable only upon proof that such putting up unduly
violated constitutional limitations like due process and equal protection of the
law. In Mirasol v. Department of Public Works and Highways, 490 SCRA 318
(2006), the Court has further noted that: A toll way is not an ordinary road. As a
facility designed to promote the fastest access to certain destinations, its use,
operation, and maintenance require close regulation. Public interest and safety
require the imposition of certain restrictions on toll ways that do not apply to
ordinary roads. As a special kind of road, it is but reasonable that not all forms of
transport could use it. Hermano Oil Manufacturing & Sugar Corporation
vs. Toll Regulatory Board, 742 SCRA 395, G.R. No. 167290 November
26, 2014

5. Here, NAPOCOR seeks to discontinue the expropriation proceedings on the

ground that the transmission lines constructed on the respondents property had
already been retired. Considering that the Court has consistently upheld the
primordial importance of public use in expropriation proceedings, NAPOCORs
reliance on Metropolitan Water District v. De los Angeles, 55 Phil. 776 (1931), was
apt and correct. Verily, the retirement of the transmission lines necessarily
stripped the expropriation proceedings of the element of public use. To continue
with the expropriation proceedings despite the definite cessation of the public
purpose of the project would result in the rendition of an invalid judgment in
favor of the expropriator due to the absence of the essential element of public use.
Republic vs. Heirs of Saturnino Q. Borbon, 745 SCRA 40, G.R. No.
165354 January 12, 2015
Page1
6. It bears reminding that pursuant to Article VI, Section 29(1) of the 1987
Constitution, no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of
an appropriation made by law. Hence, the GAA should be purposeful, deliberate,
and precise in its contents and stipulations. Also, the COA was correct when it
held that the provisions of the GAA were not self-executory. This meant that the
execution of the GAA was still subject to a program of expenditure to be approved
by the President, and such approved program of expenditure was the basis for the
release of funds. For that matter, Section 34, Chapter 5, Book VI of the
Administrative Code (Executive Order No. 292) states that Section 34.
Program of Expenditure.The Secretary of Budget shall recommend to the
President the years program of expenditure for each agency of the government
on the basis of authorized appropriations. The approved expenditure program
shall constitute the basis for fund release during the fiscal period, subject to such
policies, rules and regulations as may be approved by the President. Technical
Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) vs.
Commission on Audit, 750 SCRA 247, G.R. No. 196418 February 10,
2015

7. An ordinance is required in order to reclassify agricultural lands, and such may

only be passed after the conduct of public hearings. Holy Trinity Realty &
Development Corporation vs. Dela Cruz, 739 SCRA 229, G.R. No.
200454 October 22, 2014

8. DAP is unconstitutional. Araullo vs. Aquino III, 728 SCRA 1, G.R. No.
209569 July 1, 2014

9. There is double taxation when the same taxpayer is taxed twice when he should
be taxed only once for the same purpose by the same taxing authority within the
same jurisdiction during the same taxing period, and the taxes are of the same
kind or character. Double taxation is obnoxious. Nursery Care Corporation
vs. Acevedo, 731 SCRA 280, G.R. No. 180651 July 30, 2014

10. The Constitution has entrusted to the Executive Department the conduct of
foreign relations for the Philippines. Whether or not to espouse petitioners claim
against the Government of Japan is left to the exclusive determination and
judgment of the Executive Department. The Court cannot interfere with or
question the wisdom of the conduct of foreign relations by the Executive
Department. Accordingly, we cannot direct the Executive Department, either by
writ of certiorari or injunction, to conduct our foreign relations with Japan in a
certain manner. Vinuya vs. Romulo, 732 SCRA 595, G.R. No. 162230
Page1

August 12, 2014

11. An employee may be reassigned from one organizational unit to another in the
same agency: Provided, That such reassignment shall not involve a reduction in
rank, status or salary. (Emphasis supplied.) x x x x The foregoing definition of
reassignment has been adopted by the CSC in Section 10 of Rule VII (Other
Personnel Action) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of the
Administrative Code of 1987 (Omnibus Rules), declaring that a reassignment is
the movement of an employee from one organizational unit to another in the
same department or agency which does not involve a reduction in rank, status or
salary and does not require the issuance of an appointment. Rule III of CSC
Memorandum Circular No. 40, Series of 1998 (Revised Omnibus Rules on
Appointments and Other Personnel Actions) includes reassignment in the
enumeration of personnel movements that do not require the issuance of a new
appointment. Ejera vs. Merto, 714 SCRA 397, G.R. No. 163109 January
22, 2014

12. Misconduct is intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or

standard of behavior. To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should
relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties
of a public officer. In grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple
misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant
disregard of an established rule must be manifest. In accordance with Section 46
of Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order
No. 292), misconduct is among the grounds for disciplinary action, but no officer
or employee in the Civil Service shall be suspended or dismissed except for cause
as provided by law and after due process. It is cogent to mention that the Revised
Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, which governs the
conduct of disciplinary and non-disciplinary proceedings in administrative cases,
classifies grave misconduct as a grave administrative offense. Ganzon vs.
Arlos, 708 SCRA 115, G.R. No. 174321 October 22, 2013

13. The observance of fairness in the conduct of any investigation is at the very heart
of procedural due process. The essence of due process is to be heard, and, as
applied to administrative proceedings, this means a fair and reasonable
opportunity to explain ones side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of
the action or ruling complained of. Administrative due process cannot be fully
equated with due process in its strict judicial sense, for in the former a formal or
trial-type hearing is not always necessary, and technical rules of procedure are
not strictly applied. Ledesma v. Court of Appeals, 541 SCRA 444 (2007),
elaborates on the well-established meaning of due process in administrative
Page1

proceedings in this wise: x x x Due process, as a constitutional precept, does not

 always and in all situations require a trial-type proceeding. Due process is
satisfied when a person is notified of the charge against him and given an
opportunity to explain or defend himself. In administrative proceedings, the
filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity for the person so charged to
answer the accusations against him constitute the minimum requirements of due
process. The essence of due process is simply to be heard, or as applied to
administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain ones side, or an
opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. Vivo
vs. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), 709
SCRA 276, G.R. No. 187854 November 12, 2013

14. That the Constitutional Commission never intended to include lands used for
raising livestock and poultry, and commercial, industrial and residential lands
within the coverage of the Agrarian Reform Program of the Government is
already settled. In Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform,
192 SCRA 51 (1990), the Court pointed this out: The transcripts of the
deliberations of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 on the meaning of the
word agricultural clearly show that it was never the intention of the framers of
the Constitution to include livestock and poultry industry in the coverage of the
constitutionally-mandated agrarian reform program of the Government.

A lot inside the poblacion should be presumed residential, or commercial, or non-

agricultural unless there is a clearly preponderant evidence to show that it is
agricultural. Department of Agrarian Reform vs. Berenguer, 614 SCRA
499, G.R. No. 154094 March 9, 2010

15. The tests of a valid ordinance are well established. A long line of decisions has
held that for an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate
powers of the local government unit to enact and must be passed according to the
procedure prescribed by law, it must also conform to the following substantive
requirements: (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; (2) must
not be unfair or oppressive; (3) must not be partial or discriminatory; (4) must
not prohibit but may regulate trade; (5) must be general and consistent with
public policy; and (6) must not be unreasonable. Legaspi vs. City of Cebu, 711
SCRA 771, G.R. No. 159692 December 10, 2013

16. The power of the Office of the Ombudsman to investigate extends to all kinds of
malfeasance, misfeasance, and non-feasance that have been committed during
his tenure of office by any officer or employee of the Government, or of any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
Page1

controlled corporations. The Office of the Ombudsman also has the power to act
 on all complaints relating, but not limited, to acts or omissions that (1) are
contrary to law or regulation; (2) are unreasonable, unfair, oppressive or
discriminatory; (3) are inconsistent with the general course of an agencys
functions, though in accordance with law; (4) proceed from a mistake of law or an
arbitrary ascertainment of facts; (5) are in the exercise of discretionary powers
but for an improper purpose; or (6) are otherwise irregular, immoral or devoid of
justification. At the same time, the Office of the Ombudsman, in the exercise of
its administrative disciplinary authority, can impose the penalty of removal,
suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution of a public officer or
employee found to be at fault. The exercise of all such powers is well founded on
the Constitution and on Republic Act No. 6770. Office of the Ombudsman vs.
De Leon, 692 SCRA 27, G.R. No. 154083 February 27, 2013

17. The doctrine of qualified political agency could not be extended to the acts of the
Board of Directors of TIDCORP despite some of its members being themselves
the appointees of the President to the Cabinet. Under Section 10 of Presidential
Decree No. 1080, as further amended by Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8494,24
the five ex officio members were the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade
and Industry, the Governor of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, the Director-
General of the National Economic and Development Authority, and the Chairman
of the Philippine Overseas Construction Board, while the four other members of
the Board were the three from the private sector (at least one of whom should
come from the export community), who were elected by the ex officio members of
the Board for a term of not more than two consecutive years, and the President of
TIDCORP who was concurrently the Vice-Chairman of the Board. Such Cabinet
members sat on the Board of Directors of TIDCORP ex officio, or by reason of
their office or function, not because of their direct appointment to the Board by
the President. Evidently, it was the law, not the President, that sat them in the
Board. Manalang-Demigillo vs. Trade and Investment Development
Corporation of the Philippines (TIDCORP), 692 SCRA 359, G.R. No.
168613 March 5, 2013

18. Consistent with the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the

Constitution, the Court deems it a sound judicial policy not to interfere in the
conduct of preliminary investigations, and to allow the Executive Department,
through the Department of Justice, exclusively to determine what constitutes
sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the prosecution of supposed
offenders. By way of exception, however, judicial review may be allowed where it
is clearly established that the public prosecutor committed grave abuse of
Page1

discretion, that is, when he has exercised his discretion in an arbitrary,

 capricious, whimsical or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal
hostility, patent and gross enough as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or
virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. Ampatuan, Jr. vs. De
Lima, 695 SCRA 159, G.R. No. 197291 April 3, 2013

19. The picture images of the ballots are electronic documents that are regarded as
the equivalents of the original official ballots themselves. ut this juridical reality
does not authorize the courts, the COMELEC, and the Electoral Tribunals to
quickly and unilaterally resort to the printouts of the picture images of the ballots
in the proceedings had before them without notice to the parties. Despite the
equal probative weight accorded to the official ballots and the printouts of their
picture images, the rules for the revision of ballots adopted for their respective
proceedings still consider the official ballots to be the primary or best evidence of
the voters will. In that regard, the picture images of the ballots are to be used
only when it is first shown that the official ballots are lost or their integrity has
been compromised. Maliksi vs. Commission on Elections, 696 SCRA 272,
G.R. No. 203302 April 11, 2013

20.Clearly, the primary functions of the Office of the Solicitor General are not related
or necessary to the primary functions of the Department of Justice. Considering
that the nature and duties of the two offices are such as to render it improper,
from considerations of public policy, for one person to retain both, an
incompatibility between the offices exists, further warranting the declaration of
Agras designation as the Acting Secretary of Justice, concurrently with his
designation as the Acting Solicitor General, to be void for being in violation of the
express provisions of the Constitution. Funa vs. Agra, 691 SCRA 196, G.R.
No. 191644 February 19, 2013

21. Indeed, an appropriation by Congress was required before the judgment that
rendered the UP liable for moral and actual damages (including attorneys fees)
would be satisfied considering that such monetary liabilities were not covered by
the appropriations earmarked for the said project. The Constitution strictly
mandated that (n)o money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance
of an appropriation made by law. University of the Philippines vs. Dizon,
679 SCRA 54, G.R. No. 171182 August 23, 2012

22. The issuance by the proper disciplining authority of an order of preventive

suspension for 90 days of a civil service officer or employee pending investigation
of her administrative case is authorized provided that a formal change is served
to her and the charge involves dishonesty, oppression, grave misconduct, or
Page1

neglect in the performance of duty, or if there are reasons to believe that she is
 guilty of the charge as to warrant her removal from the service. Proof showing
that the respondent officer or employee may unduly influence the witnesses
against her or may tamper the documentary evidence on file at her office is not a
prerequisite before she may be preventively suspended. Trade and
Investment Development Corporation of the Philippines vs.
Manalang-Demigillo, 681 SCRA 27, G.R. No. 176343 September 18,
2012

23. As the findings of the RTC show, petitioner did not indicate the total number of
precincts in the municipality in his election protest. The omission rendered the
election protest insufficient in form and content, and warranted its summary
dismissal, in accordance with Section 12, Rule 2 of the Rules in A.M. No. 10-4-1-
SC. Lloren vs. Commission on Elections, 681 SCRA 167, G.R. No.
196355 September 18, 2012

24. The evident purposes of the requirement for the filing of CoCs and in fixing the
time limit for filing them are, namely: (a) to enable the voters to know, at least 60
days prior to the regular election, the candidates from among whom they are to
make the choice; and (b) to avoid confusion and inconvenience in the tabulation
of the votes cast. If the law does not confine to the duly-registered candidates the
choice by the voters, there may be as many persons voted for as there are voters,
and votes may be cast even for unknown or fictitious persons as a mark to
identify the votes in favor of a candidate for another office in the same election.

There are two remedies available to prevent a candidate from running in an

electoral race. One is through a petition for disqualification and the other through
a petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy. The Court
differentiated the two remedies in Fermin v. Commission on Elections, 574 SCRA
782 (2008), thuswise: x x x [A] petition for disqualification, on the one hand, can
be premised on Section 12 or 68 of the [Omnibus Election Code], or Section 40 of
the [Local Government Code]. On the other hand, a petition to deny due course to
or cancel a CoC can only be grounded on a statement of a material representation
in the said certificate that is false. The petitions also have different effects. While
a person who is disqualified under Section 68 is merely prohibited to continue as
a candidate, the person whose certificate is cancelled or denied due course under
Section 78 is not treated as a candidate at all, as if he/she never filed a CoC.
Talaga vs. Commission on Elections, 683 SCRA 197, G.R. No. 196804
October 9, 2012

25. The enactments of the Legislature decreed that the money to be paid to the
Page1

landowner as just compensation for the taking of his land is to be taken only from
 the Agrarian Reform Fund. As such, the liability is not the personal liability of
Land Bank, but its liability only as the administrator of the ARF. In fact, Section
10, Rule 19 of the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure, reiterates that the
satisfaction of a judgment for just compensation by writ of execution should be
from the ARF in the custody of Land Bank. Land Bank of the Philippines vs.
Suntay, 662 SCRA 614, G.R. No. 188376 December 14, 2011

26. A party aggrieved by an interlocutory order issued by a Division of the

Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in an election protest may not directly
assail the order in this Court through a special civil action for certiorari. The
remedy is to seek the review of the interlocutory order during the appeal of the
decision of the Division in due course. Cagas vs. Commission on Elections,
663 SCRA 645, G.R. No. 194139 January 24, 2012

27. Judicial officers do not have to suffer the brunt of unsuccessful or dissatisfied
litigants baseless and false imputations of their violating the Constitution in
resolving their cases and of harboring bias and partiality towards the adverse
parties. The litigant who baselessly accuses them of such violations is not
immune from appropriate sanctions if he thereby affronts the administration of
justice and manifests a disrespect towards the judicial office. Re: Verified
Complaint of Engr. Oscar L. Ongjoco, Chairman of the Board/CEO of
FH-Gymn Multi-Purpose and Transport Service Cooperative, Against
Hon. Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., Hon. Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Hon.
Florito S. Macalino, Associate Justice, Court of Appeals, 664 SCRA
465, A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 11-184-CA-J January 31, 2012

28.The requirements of due process in an administrative context are satisfied when

the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their
respective sides of the controversy, for the essence of due process is an
opportunity to be heard. Barayuga vs. Adventist University of the
Philippines, 655 SCRA 640, G.R. No. 168008 August 17, 2011

29. Compensation cannot be just to the owner in the case of property that is
immediately taken unless there is prompt payment, considering that the owner
thereby immediately suffers not only the loss of his property but also the loss of
its fruits or income. Thus, in addition, the owner is entitled to legal interest from
the time of the taking of the property until the actual payment in order to place
the owner in a position as good as, but not better than, the position he was in
before the taking occurred. Export Processing Zone Authority (now
Philippine Export Zone Authority) vs. Pulido, 656 SCRA 315, G.R. No.
Page1

188995 August 24, 2011

30.Even where there is no petition for bail in a case like Criminal Case No. 1138-03,
a hearing should still be held. This hearing is separate and distinct from the
initial hearing to determine the existence of probable cause, in which the trial
judge ascertains whether or not there is sufficient ground to engender a well-
founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably
guilty of the crime. The Prosecution must be given a chance to show the strength
of its evidence; otherwise, a violation of due process occurs. Gacal vs. Infante,
658 SCRA 535, A.M. No. RTJ- 04-1845 October 5, 2011

31. The Cityhood Laws are constitutional. League of Cities of the Philippines
(LCP) vs. Commission on Elections, 643 SCRA 150, G.R. No. 176951
February 15, 2011

32. Once the State decides to exercise its power of eminent domain, the power of
judicial review becomes limited in scope, and the courts will be left to determine
the appropriate amount of just compensation to be paid to the affected
landowners. Only when the landowners are not given their just compensation for
the taking of their property or when there has been no agreement on the amount
of just compensation may the remedy of prohibition become available. Yusay vs.
Court of Appeals, 647 SCRA 269, G.R. No. 156684 April 6, 2011

33. Two concurring elements to be present before assets or properties were

considered as ill-gotten wealth, namely: (a) they must have originated from the
government itself, and (b) they must have been taken by former President
Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, and close associates by illegal means.
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan (First Division), 648 SCRA 47, G.R. No.
166859 April 12, 2011

34. To safeguard the spirit of social justice that the Court has advocated in favor of
the working man, therefore, the right to reinstatement is to be considered
renounced or waived only when the employee unjustifiably or unreasonably
refuses to return to work upon being so ordered or after the employer has offered
to reinstate him. Escario vs. National Labor Relations Commission
(Third Division), 631 SCRA 261, G.R. No. 160302 September 27, 2010

35. It is clear, therefore, that a corporation is considered a government-owned or

-controlled corporation only when the Government directly or indirectly owns or
controls at least a majority or 51% share of the capital stock. x x x Consequently,
RPN was neither a government-owned nor a controlled corporation because of
the Governments total share in RPNs capital stock being only 32.4%. In fine,
Carandang was correct in insisting that being a private individual he was not
Page1

subject to the administrative authority of the Ombudsman and to the criminal

 jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Carandang vs. Desierto, 639 SCRA 293,
G.R. No. 148076 January 12, 2011

36. Although the law does not categorically state that only the Government, through
the Solicitor General, may attack the title of an alien transferee of land, it is
nonetheless correct to hold that only the Government, through the Solicitor
General, has the personality to file a case challenging the capacity of a person to
acquire or to own land based on non-citizenship. This limitation is based on the
fact that the violation is committed against the State, not against any individual;
and that in the event that the transferee is adjudged to be not a Filipino citizen,
the affected property reverts to the State, not to the previous owner or any other
individual. Balais-Mabanag vs. Register of Deeds of Quezon City, 617
SCRA 1, G.R. No. 153142, March 29, 2010

37. The COMELEC does not lose jurisdiction over the provincial election contest by
reason of the transmittal of the provincial ballot boxes and other election
materials to the SET, because its jurisdiction over provincial election contest
exists side by side with the jurisdiction of the SET, with each tribunal being
supreme in its respective areas of concern, with neither being higher than the
other in terms of precedence; hence, the jurisdiction of one must yield to the
other. Tolentino vs. Commission on Elections, 617 SCRA 575, G.R. Nos.
187958, 187961, and 187962, April 7, 2010

38.The fourth ground in the COMELEC Resolution for substitution of party-list

nominees, i.e., he withdraws his acceptance to a nomination is void for being
contrary to R.A. 7941.

Although the people vote for the party-list organization itself in a party-list
system of election, not for the individual nominees, they still have the right to
know who the nominees of any particular party-list organization are. The
publication of the list of the party-list nominees in newspapers of general
circulation serves that right of the people, enabling the voters to make intelligent
and informed choices. In contrast, allowing the party-list organization to change
its nominees through withdrawal of their nominations, or to alter the order of the
nominations after the submission of the list of nominees circumvents the voters
demand for transparency. The lawmakers exclusion of such arbitrary withdrawal
has eliminated the possibility of such circumvention. Lokin, Jr. Commission
on Elections, 621 SCRA 385, G.R. Nos. 179431-32, June 22, 2010

39. Not every temporary or provisional employee is automatically deemed to be a

permanent employee after rendering at least seven years of service in the
Page1

Government. The CSC still needs to evaluate whether the employee is qualified to
 avail himself or herself of the privilege granted by the statute. Moreover, that an
appointee obtains a civil service eligibility later on does not ipso facto convert his
temporary appointment into a permanent one. A new appointment is still
required, because a permanent appointment is not a continuation of the
temporary appointment; the two are distinct acts of the appointing authority.
Maniebo vs. Court of Appeals, 627 SCRA 569, G.R. No. 158708, August
10, 2010

40.True, the COMELEC, as the body tasked by no less than the 1987 Constitution to
investigate and prosecute violations of election laws, has the full discretion to
determine whether or not an election case is to be filed against a person and,
consequently, its findings as to the existence of probable cause are not subject to
review by courts. Yet, this policy of non-interference does not apply where the
COMELEC, as the prosecuting or investigating body, was acting arbitrarily and
capriciously, like herein, in reaching a different but patently erroneous result.
Guzman vs. Commission on Elections, 597 SCRA 499, G.R. No. 182380
August 28, 2009

41. Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code limits a pre-proclamation controversy
to the questions enumerated therein. The enumeration is restrictive and
exclusive. Suhuri vs. Commission on Elections, 602 SCRA 633, G.R.
No. 181869 October 2, 2009

42. The taking of property under CARL is an exercise by the State of the power of
eminent domain. A basic limitation on the States power of eminent domain is the
constitutional directive that private property shall not be taken for public use
without just compensation. Just compensation refers to the sum equivalent to the
market value of the property, broadly described to be the price fixed by the seller
in open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal action and competition,
or the fair value of the property as between one who receives and one who desires
to sell. It is fixed at the time of the actual taking by the State. Thus, if property is
taken for public use before compensation is deposited with the court having
jurisdiction over the case, the final compensation must include interests on its
just value, to be computed from the time the property is taken up to the time
when compensation is actually paid or deposited with the court. Apo Fruits
Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 607 SCRA 200, G.R. No. 164195
December 4, 2009

43. MMDAs powers were limited to the formulation, coordination, regulation,

implementation, preparation, management, monitoring, setting of policies,
Page1

installing a system, and administration. Nothing in Republic Act No. 7924

 granted MMDA police power, let alone legislative power. Metropolitan Manila
Development Authority vs. Trackworks Rail Transit Advertising, 608
SCRA 325, G.R. No. 179554, December 16, 2009

44.Prohibition on Presidential midnight appointments does not cover the Judiciary.

De Castro vs. JBC, 615 SCRA 666, G. R. No. 191002, March 17, 2010

Page1