EDUARDO DE LOS SANTOS vs. GIL R.

MALLARE
G.R. No. L-3881, August 31, 1950

FACTS:

Eduardo de los Santos, the petitioner, was appointed City Engineer of Baguio on July 16,
1946, by the President, appointment which was confirmed by the Commission on
Appointments on August 6, and on the 23rd of that month, he qualified for and began to
exercise the duties and functions of the position. On June 1, 1950, Gil R. Mallare was extended
an ad interim appointment by the President to the same position, after which, on June 3, the
Undersecretary of the Department of Public Works and Communications directed Santos to
report to the Bureau of Public Works for another assignment. Santos refused to vacate the
office, and when the City Mayor and the other officials named as Mallare's co-defendants
ignored him and paid Mallare the salary corresponding to the position, he commenced these
proceedings.

The petitioner rests his case on Article XII of the Constitution, section 4 of which reads:
"No officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for cause as
provided by law."

It is admitted in respondents' answer that Section 2545 of the Revised Administrative

Code, authorizes the Governor General (now the President) to remove at pleasure any of the
officers enumerated therein, one of whom is the city engineer.

ISSUE: Whether or not the appointment of Mallare is valid.

HELD:

Section 2 of Article XVI of the Constitution declares that "All laws of the Philippine
Islands shall continue in force until the inauguration of the Commonwealth of the Philippines;
thereafter, such laws shall remain operative, unless inconsistent with this Constitution, until
amended, altered, modified, or repealed by the Congress of the Philippines, . . . ."

It seems plain beyond doubt that the provision of section 2545 of the Revised
Administrative Code, he (Governor-General now President) may remove at pleasure any of the
said appointive officers," is incompatible with the constitutional inhibition that "No officer or
employee in the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for cause as provided by
law." The two provisions are mutually repugnant and absolutely irreconcilable. One in express
terms permits what the other in similar terms prohibits.

A law that has been repealed is as good as if it had never been enacted, and can not, in
the nature of things, contravene or pretend to contravene constitutional inhibition. So, unlike
legislation that is passed in defiance of the Constitution, assertive and menacing, the
questioned part of section 2545 of the Revised Administrative Code does not need a positive
declaration of nullity by the court to put it out of the way. To all intents and purposes, it is non-
existent, outlawed and eliminated from the statute book by the Constitution itself by express
mandate before this petitioner was appointed.

NATIONAL HOUSING CORPORATION vs COMMISSION ON AUDIT

[G.R. No. 101370. September 2, 1993.]
FACTS:
Our government forged an agreement on financial cooperation with the Republic of
Germany. On April 10, 1981, a Loan and Project Agreement was executed between the Republic
of the Philippines as "Borrower" and the National Housing Authority (NHA) as "Project Sponsor"
on the one hand, and the Kreditanstalt Fur Weideraufbau (KFW) on the other hand, for Urban
Housing Dagat-Dagatan Project II A/B. The agreement empowered the NHA and the KFW to
determine the details of the project as well as the goods and services to be financed from the
loan. They hired the services of Engineer Brian W. Murdoch of Kinhill Pty. Ltd. (Kinhill), a foreign
corporation organized under the laws of Australia.
In 1987, the KFW proposed to extend the contract of Engr. Murdoch for another year.
The NHA Board of Directors approved only a 3-month extension, from March 9 to June 9, 1987.
It also directed its management to make representations with KFW to replace Engr. Murdoch
with a local consultant after June 9, 1987 if the project would still be unfinished. The 3-month
consultancy contract was submitted to the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA)
for approval. On April 1, 1987, NEDA approved the contract with the having the same
observations as to those of the Board of Directors and ordered that NHA shall make
representations with KFW to substitute a qualified local consultant for Engr. Murdoch after
expiration of the contract if a consultant for the project is still necessary.
However, despite all the negotiations and contracts, the project was not completed as
scheduled that had led to the extension of the loan agreement but before the request can be
granted, KFW conditions for its approval the extension of the consultancy services of Kinhill.
Leaving NHA no choice but to extend contract of consultancy with Engr. Murdoch.
After several extensions were made, COA disallowed another contract extending the
services of Engineer Brian W. Murdoch holding that the remaining works for the unfinished
project can be done done by local consultants.
Petitioner argues that the renewal of the loan agreement with the KFW would have
been jeopardized if it did not agree to the extension of the services of Engr. Murdoch.
ISSUE: Whether or not COA, by virtue of the powers granted to it under the Constitution,
substitute its own judgment or disposition in lieu of the decision of the management or
governing body of government entities."
HELD:
The power of the Commission on Audit to audit and examine government expenditures
is enshrined in Section 2 (1), Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution.
The Constitution also granted to COA the power to "promulgate accounting and auditing
rules and regulations, including those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular,
unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures, or uses of government
funds and properties.”
There can be no dispute on the proposition that the continued extension of the
services of Engr. Murdoch as a foreign consultant constitutes at the very least an unnecessary
expense.
In Caltex Philippines, Inc. v. COA, 7 We recognized the authority of COA to disallow
irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant or unconscionable (IUEEU) expenditures. We
ruled: "Since the COA is responsible for the enforcement of the rules and regulations, it goes
without saying that failure to comply with them is a ground for disapproving the payment of
the proposed expenditure."

THE NACIONALISTA PARTY vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

[G.R. No. L-3521. December 13, 1949.]
FACTS:

Several weeks before the holding of the last national elections, some of the petitioners
made representations to the respondent that in view of the state of terrorism and political
persecutions existing in the provinces of Negros Occidental and Lanao against the persons of
the candidates, leaders, and sympathizers of the petitioners, intended to prevent the free
expression of the voters’ will in the national elections scheduled for November 8, 1949, and
considering the rampant violation of the Election Law which were committed in said provinces
to the prejudice of the petitioners during the two registration days, consisting among others of
the padding of the electoral census in many of the municipal districts of Lanao, it had become
impossible to hold free, orderly, and honest elections in said provinces.
In view of said representations the respondent Commission, after considering the
evidence presented before it, approved a resolution on November 4, 1949 wherein it found in
substance that the Provincial Governor of Negros Occidental the, who was the political leader
in that province of one of the political parties (the Liberal Party), organized and fully armed
special agents following his commands, arrested without warrants of arrest, threatened,
intimidated, and assaulted the political leaders and followers of the opposition prompting
candidates and political leaders of the opposition had to evacuate to Iloilo, Manila, and other
places for security reasons and that under the tense political situation in the province,
provincial governor had full control of the election in said province; and that in the light of
these facts the Commission believed that a clean, orderly, and honest election could not be
held in the province of Negros Occidental.
That in the province of Lanao, wholesale frauds were committed in the 1947 election
consisting in the registration in various municipal districts of thousands of fictitious voters;
that in some municipal districts the number of registered electors even exceeded the number
of inhabitants; that what happened in the 1947 election in Lanao was bound to be repeated in
the 1949 election, in view of the fact that the election precincts where there was fraudulent
registration of voters were situated in distant places, the great majority of them in jungles
without any means of communication and beyond the supervision of the representatives of the
Commission on Elections.
Upon these findings the Commission recommended to the President of the Philippines
the postponement of the election in the entire province of Negros Occidental and in various
specified municipal districts of Lanao.
The President chose not to follow said recommendation, and did not suspend the
elections in the two provinces in question.
Petitioners further allege, but respondent denies, that the rampant terrorism and
irregularities mentioned in the resolution and recommendation of the Commission on Elections
"continued to exist during the last election according to reports duly submitted before the
respondent Commission on Elections" ; that, consequently, the elections held in the provinces
of Lanao and Negros Occidental are null and void; and that therefore the votes cast therein
should not be counted.
ISSUE:
Whether OR NOT the Commission on Elections is empowered to annul an election in any
political division or subdivision because of alleged terrorism or fraud committed in
connection therewith.
HELD:
The jurisdiction over such case is expressly and exclusively vested by the Constitution
in the Electoral Tribunal of the Senate.
"SEC. 11. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral
Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine
Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief
Justice, and the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or of the House of
Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen by each House, three upon
nomination of the party having the largest number of votes and three of the party having the
second largest number of votes therein. The senior Justice in each Electoral Tribunal shall be its
Chairman."cralaw
Under the Constitution, "questions of illegal voting and fraudulent practices are passed
on by another tribunal," the Electoral Tribunal of the Senate. Such questions will in all
probability be raised before said tribunal at the proper time, and we must not prejudge an issue
over which we have no jurisdiction. Whether the votes for senators in Negros Occidental and
Lanao are valid or invalid is a question which neither the Commission on Elections nor this court
is empowered to decide.