Election Law Reviewer

LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW
PRE-BAR LECTURE
ON
ELECTION LAW AND LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
for
2018 BAR EXAMINATION
JUDGE GENER M. GITO, LL.M., D.C.L.

ELECTION LAWS
SUFFRAGE
• Concept
• The right to vote in the election of officers

chosen by the people and in the determination
of questions submitted to the people. It includes
within its scope election, plebiscite, initiative and
referendum.
GMA vs. COMELEC,
GR 205357, September 2, 2014
• In this case the SC annulled Section 9 of the Comelec
Resolution No. 9615, which limited the airtime within
which national candidates and political parties in the
2013 election may air political advertisements on TV
and radion to an aggregate of 120 minutes and 180
minutes, respectively, was violative of the people’s
right to suffrage. Candidates and political parties need
adequate breathing space – including the means to
disseminate their ideas.
Who may exercise the right of suffrage?
• SECTION 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens
of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law, who
are at least eighteen years of age, and who shall have
resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the
place wherein they propose to vote for at least six
months immediately preceding the election. No literacy,
property, or other substantive requirement shall be
imposed on the exercise of suffrage (Article V).
RA 9189 (OAVA OF 2003)
• The allows Filipino overseas workers to vote in the
election. The provides that among those disqualified to
vote is an immigrant or permanent resident of another
country unless he or she executes an affidavit declaring
that he/she shall resume actual, physical, permanent
residence in the Philippines not later than three years
from the approval of his/her registration under the Act.
Macalintal vs. COMELEC,
GR 157013, July 10, 2003
• Does Section 5(d) of Rep. Act No. 9189 allowing the

registration of voters who are immigrants or
permanent residents in other countries by their mere
act of executing an affidavit expressing their
intention to return to the Philippines, violate the
residency requirement in Section 1 of Article V of
the Constitution?
GR 157013, July 10, 2003
• R.A. No. 9189 was enacted in obeisance to the mandate of
the first paragraph of Section 2, Article V of the
Constitution that Congress shall provide a system for voting
by qualified Filipinos abroad. It must be stressed that Section
2 does not provide for the parameters of the exercise of
legislative authority in enacting said law. Hence, in the
absence of restrictions, Congress is presumed to have duly
exercised its function as defined in Article VI (The
Legislative Department) of the Constitution.
GR 157013, July 10, 2003
• The execution of the affidavit itself is not the enabling
or enfranchising act. The affidavit is not only proof of
the intention of the immigrant or permanent resident
to go back and resume residency in the Philippines, but
it serves as an explicit expression that he has not in fact
abandoned his domicile.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Composition/Qualifications
 Article IX-C, Section 1(1)
• There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and
six Commissioners.
• Natural-born citizens of the Philippines
• 35 years of age at the time of appointment
• holders of a college degree
• Must not have been candidates for any elective positions in the
immediately preceding elections.
• However, a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members
of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for
at least ten years.
How appointed?
 Article IX-C, Section 1(2)
• Appointed by the President
• With the consent of the CA
• For a term of 7 years
• No re-appointment
• Designation or appointment in an acting capacity is prohibited
• Appointment in the vacancy will only be for the unexpired
portion
Rotational Scheme of Appointment
 The first appointees shall serve for terms of seven, five, and
three years, respectively.
 In order to preserve the periodic succession mandated by the
Constitution, the rotational plan requires two conditions:
 The term of the first commissioners should start on a
common date
 Any vacancy before expiration should be filled only for the
unexpired balance (Gaminde vs. COA, December 13,
2000)
Funa vs. Chairman of COA
May an incumbent
commissioner be
appointed as
Chairman?
Section 1(2), Article IX-D
• The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by
the President with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments for a term of seven years without
reappointment. Of those first appointed, the Chairman shall
hold office for seven years, one Commissioner for five years,
and the other Commissioner for three years, without
reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for
the unexpired portion of the term of the predecessor. In
no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a
temporary or acting capacity.
 On February 15, 2001, President Gloria Macapagal-

Arroyo (President Macapagal-Arroyo) appointed
Guillermo N. Carague (Carague) as Chairman of
the Commission on Audit (COA) for a term of
seven (7) years, pursuant to the 1987 Constitution.
Carague’s term of office started on February 2,
2001 to end on February 2, 2008.
•Meanwhile, on February 7, 2004,
President Macapagal-Arroyo appointed
Reynaldo A. Villar (Villar) as the third
member of the COA for a term of seven
(7) years starting February 2, 2004 until
February 2, 2011.
• Following the retirement of Carague on February 2,

2008 and during the fourth year of Villar as COA
Commissioner, Villar was designated as Acting
Chairman of COA from February 4, 2008 to April
14, 2008. Subsequently, on April 18, 2008, Villar was
nominated and appointed as Chairman of the COA
up to Feb. 2, 2011. Shortly thereafter, on June 11,
2008, the Commission on Appointments confirmed
his appointment.
• He was to serve as Chairman of COA, as expressly indicated
in the appointment papers, until the expiration of the original
term of his office as COA Commissioner or on February 2,
2011. Challenged in this recourse, Villar, in an obvious bid to
lend color of title to his hold on the chairmanship, insists that
his appointment as COA Chairman accorded him a fresh term
of seven (7) years which is yet to lapse. He would argue, in
fine, that his term of office, as such chairman, is up to
February 2, 2015, or 7 years reckoned from February 2, 2008
when he was appointed to that position.
Carague’s term Villar’s term as

as Chairman: Commissioner:
February 2, 2001
February 2, 2004
to end on
until February 2,
February 2, 2008.
2011
(7 years)
• 1. The appointment of members of any of the three
constitutional commissions, after the expiration of the
uneven terms of office of the first set of commissioners,
shall always be for a fixed term of seven (7) years; an
appointment for a lesser period is void and unconstitutional.
• The appointing authority cannot validly shorten the full term
of seven (7) years in case of the expiration of the term as this
will result in the distortion of the rotational system
prescribed by the Constitution.
• 2. Appointments to vacancies resulting from certain
causes (death, resignation, disability or impeachment)
shall only be for the unexpired portion of the term
of the predecessor, but such appointments cannot be
less than the unexpired portion as this will likewise
disrupt the staggering of terms laid down under Sec.
1(2), Art. IX(D).
• 3. Members of the Commission, e.g. COA,
COMELEC or CSC, who were appointed for a full
term of seven years and who served the entire
period, are barred from reappointment to any
position in the Commission. Corollarily, the first
appointees in the Commission under the
Constitution are also covered by the prohibition
against reappointment.
• 4. A commissioner who resigns after serving in the Commission for less than seven
years is eligible for an appointment to the position of Chairman for the unexpired
portion of the term of the departing chairman. Such appointment is not covered by
the ban on reappointment, provided that the aggregate period of the length of
service as commissioner and the unexpired period of the term of the predecessor
will not exceed seven (7) years and provided further that the vacancy in the position
of Chairman resulted from death, resignation, disability or removal by
impeachment. The Court clarifies that “reappointment” found in Sec. 1(2), Art.
IX(D) means a movement to one and the same office (Commissioner to
Commissioner or Chairman to Chairman). On the other hand, an appointment
involving a movement to a different position or office (Commissioner to Chairman)
would constitute a new appointment and, hence, not, in the strict legal sense, a
reappointment barred under the Constitution.
Powers of the COMELEC
(Section 2, Article IX-C)
1. Enforce and administer all laws and

regulation relative to the conduct of election,
plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall
Enforcement of Election Laws
COMELEC has the power to annul the results

of the plebiscite (Buac vs. Comelec, 2004)
COMELEC has the power to declare failure
of election (Sison vs. Comelec, 1999)
COMELEC has the power to regulate media,
subject to exceptions.
Enforcement of Election Laws
 BUT:
 The power of direct control and supervision by DILG over SK
election does not contravene the grant of powers to COMELEC
(Alunan, III vs. Mirasol, 1997)
 COMELEC cannot exercise power of apportionment (Montejo
vs. Comelec, 242 SCRA 415)
 COMELEC has no power to exclude voters (Section 2(2), Article
IX-C)
 COMELEC is not empowered to conduct unofficial quick count
for president and vice president (Brillantes vs. Comelec, 2004).
• 2. “Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all

contests relating to the elections, returns, and
qualifications of all elective regional, provincial,
and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all
contests involving elective municipal officials
decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or
involving elective barangay officials decided by
trial courts of limited jurisdiction.”
• 3. “Decide, except those involving the right to

vote, all questions affecting elections, including
determination of the number of and location
of the polling places appointment of election
officials and inspections and registration of
voters.
Jurisdiction over Election Contest
• Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests
relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of
all elective regional, provincial, and city officials.
• And appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving

elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of
general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay
officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction over Election Contests
Article IX-C, Section 3
• “The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two
divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to
expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-
proclamation controversies. All such election cases shall be heard
and decided in division, provided that motions for
reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission
en banc. ”
Who has jurisdiction over the qualifications
of party-list? Comelec or HRET?
The Comelec has jurisdiction. However, with
respect to the qualification of the nominees of
party list, it is the HRET which has jurisdiction.
Layug vs. Comelec, (February 28, 2012)
 Does COMELEC had certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus power?
 Yes. Since it is the COMELEC that has jurisdiction over appeals

from the decision of the RTC in election contest involving
elective municipal official, then it is also the COMELEC that
has the authority to issue a writ of certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus in aid of its appellate jurisdiction (Festo Galang vs.
Geronimo, GR 192793, February 22, 2011; Relampagos vs.
Cumba, 243 SCRA 690).
 What is the jurisdiction of COMELEC division vis-à-vis
COMELEC en banc?
 All election disputes under the original and appellate
jurisdiction of the COMELEC shall be heard and decided by
the COMELEC Division:
 Petition to cancel certificate of candidacy (Garvida vs. Sales,
GR 122872, Setember 10, 1997). COMELEC en banc, cannot
short cut the proceedings by acting on a case without prior
action by a division (Karamudin Ibraim vs. COMELEC, gr
No. 192289, January 14, 2013).
What is the jurisdiction of COMELEC

division vis-à-vis COMELEC en banc?
Cases appealed from RTC and MTC have to be
heard and decided in division before they may
be heard en banck upon the filing of a motion
for reconsideration of the division decision
(Abad vs. COMELEC, December 10, 1999).
 Sarmiento vs. Comelec, 212 SCRA 307

• The SC set aside the resolutions of the COMELEC
because the COMELEC en banc took original
cognizance of the cases without referring them first to
the appropriate division.
When En Banc May Entertain
 Municipal Board of Canvassers vs. COMELEC,

October 23, 2003
• Thus, the rule that all election cases, including pre-
proclamation cases, should first be heard and decided by
the COMELEC in division applies only when the
COMELEC exercises it adjudicatory or quasi-judicial
function, not when it exercises purely administrative
functions (Canicosa vs. Comelec, December 5, 1997)
When En Banc May Entertain
• Petition for correction of manifest errors alleges an

erroneous copying of figures from election return to
the Statement of Votes by precinct. Such error in
tabulation of results, which merely requires clerical
correction without opening the ballot boxes or
examining the ballots, demands only the exercise of the
administrative power of the COMELEC. (Jaramilla vs.
Comelec, October 23, 2003)
SC’s Jurisdiction over decision of
COMELEC
• Only decisions of the COMELEC en banc may be
brought to SC under Rule 65.
• However, the decision referred to above is that one issued
in the COMELEC’s exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-
judicial function. Where the decision being questioned is
one that is issued the COMELEC’s exercise of its
administrative function, the same may be brought to an
appropriate Court. (Filipinas Engineering & Machine
Shop vs. Ferrer, 135 SCRA 25)
Procedural Flow of Election Contest
Supreme
Elective Regional,
Provincial, City COMELEC Court thru
COMELEC
official: en banc: thru Certiorari
Qualification, Division
Election, Return
MR under RC,
64, 64
Procedural flow of Election Contest
Supreme
Elective COMELEC COMELEC Court thru
Regional
Municipal Division en bank thru Certiorari
Trial Court
Officials thru Appeal MR under RC
64, 65
Procedural flow of Election Contest
Supreme
Elective COMELEC COMELEC Court thru
First Level
Barangay Division en bank thru Certiorari
Court
Officials thru Appeal MR under RC
64, 65
Does the Comelec have jurisdiction over
exclusion or inclusion of voters?
 No. Under Section (3), Article IX-C, the

COMELEC can decide all question relating to
election except the right to vote?
Jurisdiction of Comelec vis-à-vis the
jurisdiction of Electoral Tribunals
 When does the jurisdiction of the COMELEC end and
when does the jurisdiction of electoral tribunal begin?
 The jurisdiction of the Electoral tribunal begins once
the winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his
oath, and assumed office, for it is only after the
occurrence of these events that a candidate can be
considered of as either a member of the House or
Senator.
 Limchaichong vs. Comelec (April 1, 2009); Reyes vs.
Comelec, June 25, 2013
Electoral Tribunals
• Section 17, Article VI
• 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 the House of
Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of
proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or
organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The
senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman.
Jurisdiction of Electoral Tribunals
The sole judge of all contests

relating to the election, returns,
and qualifications of the
members of the Senate and the
House of Representatives.
When does the jurisdiction of the
COMELEC over the candidates for
House end and when does the
jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunal
begins?
Reyes vs. Comelec,
June 25, 2013
The
jurisdiction of
an Electoral •Proclaimed
Tribunal
begins once a •Taken his oath
winning
candidate has •Assumed office
been:
May COMELEC entertain petition for disqualification of
candidate for Representative, Senator and President?
• No. There is absence of an authorized proceeding for
determining before election the qualifications of candidate for
Representative, Senator and President.
• To disqualify a candidate, there must be a declaration by a final
judgment of a competent court that the candidate sought to be
disqualified "is guilty of or found by the Commission to be
suffering from any disqualification provided by law or the
Constitution."
• (Poe vs. Comelec, March 8, 2016)
Executive Clemency on Election Cases
• Article IX-C, Section 5

• “No pardon, amnesty, parole, or suspension of
sentence for violation of election laws, rules, and
regulations shall be granted by the President
without the favourable recommendation of the
Commission.”
Who has the power to conduct preliminary
investigation in election offenses?
• Under Section 265, B.P. 881, the COMELEC is granted

exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigation of
all offenses punishable under Omnibus Election Code
and prosecute the same (De Jesus vs. People, 120
SCRA 720; People vs. Judge Inting, 187 SCRA 788).
• However, under Sec. 43, of RA 9369, COMELEC has
concurrent power to conduct preliminary investigation
with other prosecution arm of the government (BANAT
vs. COMELEC, August 7, 2009).
Jurisdiction over inclusion or
exclusion of voters
• The first level courts shall have original and excusive
jurisdiction over all inclusion and exclusion of voters in their
respective municipalities and cities. Decision of the MTC,
MCTC, MTCC, MeTC may be appealed with the RTC
within five (5) days from the receipt of the decision. The
RTC shall decide the appeal within ten (10) days from the
time it is received and the decision shall immediately become
final and executory. No motion for reconsideration is
allowed (Section 33, R.A. 8189, "The Voter's Registration
Act of 1996.").
Qualification and Disqualification of
Candidates
• SOME PRINCIPLES
• Qualification prescribed by law are continuing
requirements and must be possessed for the
duration of the officer’s active tenure. Once any
of the prescribed qualification is lost, his title to
the office may be seasonably challenged
(Frivaldo vs. COMELEC, 174 SCRA 245).
Candidates
• RESIDENCE AS QUALIFICATION
• There is no hard and fast rule to determine the candidates’

compliance with the residency requirement since the question of
residence is a question of intention. But jurisprudence provide the
following guidelines: 1) every person has a domicile and residence
somewhere; 2) once established, the domicile remains until he acquire
new one; and a person can have but one domicile at a time (Jalosjos
vs. COMELEC, April 24, 2012). A change of residence requires
actual and deliberate abandonment because one cannot have but one
domicile at a time (Jalosjos vs. COMELEC, February 26, 2013).
Candidates
• Disqualification under Election Code.
• SECTION 12. Disqualifications. — Any person who has been 1) declared
by competent authority insane or incompetent, or has been 2) sentenced by final judgment
for subversion, insurrection, rebellion or for any offense for which he has been sentenced to a
penalty of more than eighteen months or 3) for a crime involving moral turpitude, shall be
disqualified to be a candidate and to hold any office, unless he has been given
plenary pardon or granted amnesty.
• This disqualifications to be a candidate herein provided shall be deemed
removed upon the declaration by competent authority that said insanity or
incompetence had been removed or after the expiration of a period of five
years from his service of sentence, unless within the same period he again
becomes disqualified (BP 881). See, Risos-Vidal vs. Estrada, January 21,
2015.
Candidates
• Disqualification under Election Code.
• SECTION 12. Disqualifications. — Any person who has been 1) declared
by competent authority insane or incompetent, or has been 2) sentenced by final judgment
for subversion, insurrection, rebellion or for any offense for which he has been sentenced to a
penalty of more than eighteen months or 3) for a crime involving moral turpitude, shall be
disqualified to be a candidate and to hold any office, unless he has been given
plenary pardon or granted amnesty.
• This disqualifications to be a candidate herein provided shall be deemed
removed upon the declaration by competent authority that said insanity or
incompetence had been removed or after the expiration of a period of five
years from his service of sentence, unless within the same period he again
becomes disqualified (BP 881). See, Risos-Vidal vs. Estrada, January 21,
2015.
Candidates
• Disqualification under Local Government Code. (Sec. 40)
• (a) Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving
moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or
more of imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving sentence.
• Moreno vs. COMELEC, August 10, 2006 - a person who was
convicted but under probation is not disqualified from running for
a public office because probation is not a sentence but rather a
suspension of the imposition of sentence.
Candidates
• (b) Those removed from office as a result of an administrative

case.
• Grego vs. COMELEC, June 19, 1997 – a candidate who was

removed by virtue of an administrative case before the effectivity
of the local government code is not disqualified. This is because,
the LGC should not be given retroactive effect.
Candidates
• (d) Those with dual citizenship;
• Mercado vs. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630 – what is prohibited is dual
allegiance not dual citizenship.
• Lopez vs. COMELEC, July 23, 2008 – the statement that the filing of the
certificate of candidacy by one who has dual citizenship suffices to renounce
foreign citizenship should be deemed superseded by section 5(2), RA 9225,
which requires a former Filipino who reacquires Philippine by taking an oath
of allegiance under RA 9225 to state in clear terms that he is renouncing all
foreign citizenship, failing which, he is disqualified to run for public office.
Candidates
• (e) Fugitives from justice in criminal or non-political cases here

or abroad
• Rodriguez vs. COMELEC, July 24, 1996 – the petitioner was

no “fugitive from justice because his arrival in the Philippines
preceded the filing of the case against him in foreign court and
the warrant of arrest was issued after his arrival.
Candidates
• Other Disqualification under the Election Code. (Sec. 68)
• SECTION 68. Disqualifications. — Any candidate who, in an action or

protest in which he is a party is declared by final decision of a competent
court guilty of, or found by the Commission of having
• (a) given money or other material consideration to influence, induce or
corrupt the voters or public officials performing electoral functions;
• (b) committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy;
• (c) spent in his election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by
this Code;
• (d) solicited, received or made any contribution prohibited under the
Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and 104; or
Candidates
• Other Disqualification under the Election Code. (Sec. 68)
• SECTION 68. Disqualifications.

• (e) violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and
cc, sub-paragraph 6, shall be disqualified from continuing as a candidate,
or if he has been elected, from holding the office.
• Any person who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign
country shall not be qualified to run for any elective office under this Code,
unless said person has waived his status as permanent resident or immigrant
of a foreign country in accordance with the residence requirement provided
for in the election laws.
Certificate of Candidacy
• When is a person considered a candidate?
• Any person who files his certificate of candidacy within this period shall only
be considered as a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which
he filed his certificate of candidacy: Provided, That, unlawful acts or
omissions applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start
of the aforesaid campaign period: Provided, finally, That any person
holding a public appointive office or position, including active members of
the armed forces, and officers and employees in government-owned or -
controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his/her
office and must vacate the same at the start of the day of the filing of his/her
certificate of candidacy (Section 15, RA 8436, as amended by 9369).
Petition to Deny Due Course or to Cancel
• A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a
certificate of candidacy may be filed by the person
exclusively on the ground that any “material
representation” contained therein as required under Section
74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time not
later than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the
certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice
and hearing, not later than fifteen days before the election.
(Section 78, OEC).
Petition to Deny Due Course or to Cancel
• A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a
certificate of candidacy may be filed by the person
exclusively on the ground that any “material
representation” contained therein as required under Section
74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time not
later than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the
certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice
and hearing, not later than fifteen days before the election.
(Section 78, OEC).
What misrepresented are “material
matters”
• Material matters are:
• “qualification for elective office”
• Examples: 1) residency; 2) age; 3) citizenship; 4) or any other
legal qualifications necessary to run for local elective office,
couple with the showing that there was an intent to deceive
the electorate. The candidate nick name does not pertain to
his eligibility or qualification for office, and cannot be
considered a misrepresentation (Villafuerte vs.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 206698, February 25, 2014).
What is the effect if the certificate of candidacy
is declared void for lack of material
misrepresentation?
•A cancelled certificate of candidacy void
ab initio cannot give rise to a valid
candidacy, much less valid votes. If one’s
certificate of candidacy, much less valid
votes. If one’s certificate is void ab initio,
then there was never a candidate.
Aratea vs. COMELEC
GR No. 195229October 9, 2012
•The Court ruled that a cancelled certificate
of candidacy void ab ignition cannot give
rise to a valid candidacy, and much less to
valid votes. Thus, the “second placer”
candidate is deemed to have garnered the
highest number of votes and is entitled to
hold the corresponding elective position.
When can there be substitution?
• SECTION 77. Candidates in case of death,
disqualification or withdrawal of another. — If
after the last day for the filing of certificates of
candidacy, an official candidate of a registered or
accredited political party dies, withdraws or is
disqualified for any cause, only a person belonging to,
and certified by, the same political party may file a
certificate of candidacy to replace the candidate who
died, withdrew or was disqualified. x x x x.
Please take note:
• Considering that Sec. 77 requires that there be a
candidate in order for substitution to take place, as well
as the precept that a person without a valid CoC is not
considered as a candidate, it necessary follows that if a
person’s CoC had been denied due course, he cannot be
validly substituted, Thus, the existence of a valid CoC is
a condition sine qua non for a disqualified candidate to
validly substituted (Talaga vs. COMELEC, October
9, 2012).
How is petition for disqualification different
from petition to deny due course the “CoC”?
• The disqualification case under Section 68 is hinged on either (1)
a candidate’s possession of a permanent resident status in a
foreign country; or, his commission of certain acts of
disqualification, e.g. vote-buying, terrorism, overspending,
soliciting or making prohibited contributions. If a candidate is
disqualified, he technically to have been considered a candidate.
• Denial of due course of CoC is premised on person’s
misrepresentation of any of the material qualifications required
for elective office aspired for.
LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICER
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Composition and Qualifications
(Section 1, Article IX-B)
 Chairman and 2 Commissioners

 Natural born citizens
 At least 35 years of age
 Proven capacity for public administration
 Must not have been candidates for any elective
position in the election immediately preceding their
appointment
How appointed?
(Section 1(2), Article IX-B)
Appointed by the President
With the consent of the CA
For a term of 7 years
Without reappointment
Appointment or designation in an acting
capacity is not allowed
Scope of Civil Service
(Section 2(1), Article IX-B)
Embraces all branches, subdivisions,

instrumentalities of the government,
including government owned and
controlled corporation with original
charter
Important Definitions
 Government owned and controlled corporations

(GOCC) – any agency organized as a stock or non-
stock corporation vested with functions related to
public needs whether governmental or proprietary in
nature, and owned by the GRP directly or thru its
instrumentalities either wholly where applicable, as in
case of stocks corporations, to the extent of at least a
majority of its outstanding capital stock.
Important Definitions
 Government instrumentalities with corporate

powers (GICP’s) – instrumentalities or agencies of
the government which are neither corporations nor
agencies integrated within the departmental
framework, but vested by law with special functions or
jurisdiction, endowed with some if not all corporate
power, administering special funds and enjoying
operational autonomy.
Manner of Entry in Civil Service
Section 2(2). Article IX-B
Appointments in the civil service shall be made
only according to merit and fitness to be
determined, as far as practicable, and, except to
positions which are policy-determining,
primarily confidential, or highly technical, by
competitive examination.
Who are exempted?
Policy determining – one charged with laying

down of principal or fundamental guidelines or
rules.
Example:
Head of Department
Who are exempted?
Primarily confidential
One denoting not only confidence in the

aptitude of the appointee but primarily close
intimacy which ensures freedom of intercourse
without embarrassment or freedom from
misgivings or betrayals of personal trust on
confidential matter of state
Who are exempted?
Highly technical
One who possess technical skill or training in

the supreme or superior degree
Classes of Civil Service
Career Service
Non-Career Service
Career Service
Characterized by:
Entrance based on merit and fitness to be
determined as far as practicable by
competitive examinations,
Based on highly technical qualifications;
Opportunity for advancement to higher
positions; and security of tenure.
Career Service
Open career positions
Closed career positions
Career executive service
Career officers
Positions in AFP
Personnel in GOCC
Permanent laborers
Non-Career Service
 Characterized by:
 entrance on bases other than those of usual tests
utilized for the career service; tenure limited to a
period specified by law, or which is co-terminous
with that of appointing authority or subject to his
pleasure,
 limited to the duration of a particular project for
which purpose the employment was made.
Non-Career Service
Elective officials and their personal and
confidential staff
Department heads who hold office at the
pleasure of the President, and their
confidential staffs
Chairmen and members of the Commissions
Contractual personnel
Emergency and seasonal personnel
Security of Tenure
“No officer or employee of civil service shall be

removed or suspended except for cause
provided by law” (Section 2[3], Article IX-B).
Removal without violation of Security of
Tenure
Valid abolition of office does not violate
security of tenure (De la Llana vs. Alba)
Reorganization of office does not necessarily
result in abolition of the offices, and does not
justify replacement of permanent officers and
employees (Dario vs. Mison; Mendoza vs.
Quisumbing, 186 SCRA 108)
Violation of Security of Tenure
Where there is actually no abolition of office

and the law just provides that the position of the
present holders of position becomes vacant, the
law is unconstitutional. (Canonizado vs
Aguirre, January 25, 2000)
Partisan Political Activity
Article IX-B, Section 2(4)

“No officer or employee in the civil service shall
engage, directly or indirectly, in any
electioneering or partisan political campaign.”
Seneres vs. Comelec (2009)

An acting Administrator of Land Railway
Transport authority who was concurrently the
president of a political party) did not engage in
in partisan political activity when he signed the
list of his party’s nomination for party list
election.

Exempt from this provision are members of the
cabinet and employees holding political offices
(Santos vs. Yatco, 106 Phil. 745)
Right to Self-Organization

 The right to self-organization shall not be denied to
government employees.
Article III, Section 8
 The right of the people including those employed in the public and public sector to form
unions, associations, or societies for purpose not contrary to law shall not be abridged.
 Article XIII, Section 3
Right to Self-Organization
This does not include the right to strike.

Wearing red shirts at public hearing is
covered by freedom of expression (GSIS
vs. Villaviza [2010])
Temporary Appointments

Temporary employees of the government
shall be given such protection as may be
provided by law.
When is an appointment in the civil service
permanent?
• It is permanent when issued to a person who
meets all the requirements for the position to
which he is being appointed, including the
appropriate illegibility prescribed in accordance
with law
Power of CSC
• Central Personnel agency of the government.
• As central personnel agency of the government,
what is the role of CSC in appointments?
• It is limited to the determination of the
qualifications of the candidate for appointment. It
has no role in the choice of the person to be
appointed.
Incompatible Office
Section 7, Article IX-B
• No elective official shall be eligible for

appointment or designation in any capacity to
any public office or position during his tenure.
Bar Question
X was elected provincial governor for a term of

three years. He was subsequently appointed by
the President serving at her pleasure, as
concurrent Presidential assistant for Political
Affairs, without additional compensation.
• Is X appointment valid?
Answer
No. Under Section 7, Article IX-B, No

elective official shall be eligible for appointment
or designation in any capacity to any public
office or position during his tenure.
Incompatible Office
 Article IX-B, Section 7  Article VII, Section 13
• The President, the VP, the Members of the
• Unless otherwise allowed by Cabinet and their deputies and Assistants shall
law or by the primary functions not, unless allowed by this Constitution, hold
any other office or employment during their
of his position, no appointive tenure.
official shall hold any other
office or employment in the
Government or any
subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof,
including Government-owned
or controlled corporations or
their subsidiaries.
Double Compensation
 Article IX-B, Section 8

• “No elective or appointive public officer or employee
shall receive additional, double, or indirect
compensation, unless specifically authorized by law, nor
accept without the consent of the Congress, any
present, emolument, office, or title of any kind from
any foreign government.”
Public Office
• "Public office" is the right, authority and duty, created and conferred by
law, by which, for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the
pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some
portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised
by the individual for the benefit of the public. (Fernandez v. Sto.
Tomas, 312 Phil. 235, 247 [1995]).
• When the term is used with reference to a person having to do a
particular act or to perform a particular function in the exercise of
governmental power, it includes any government employee, agent or
body to do the act or exercise that function (Administrative Code of
1987, Section 2).
Elements of Public Office
• "Public office" is the right, authority and duty, created
and conferred by law, by which, for a given period,
either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the
creating power, an individual is invested with some
portion of the sovereign functions of the government,
to be exercised by the individual for the benefit of the
public. (Fernandez v. Sto. Tomas, 312 Phil. 235, 247
[1995]).
• Public officer is on who hold public office.
Eligibility and Qualification
• It may refer of endowments,

qualities or attributes which make
Qualification an individual eligible for public
in two office.
different
senses: • It may refer to the act of entering
into the performance of public
office.
Who has the authority to prescribe
qualifications/disqualification?
• Qualification
• Flores vs. Drilon, June 22, 1993
Congress • Disqualification
• Dumlao vs. COMELEC, 95 SCRA
400
Disqualifications under the Constitution
• SECTION 6. No candidate who has lost in any election shall, within one
year after such election, be appointed to any office in the Government or any
government-owned or controlled corporations or in any of their subsidiaries
(Art. IX-B).
• SECTION 7. No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or
designation in any capacity to any public office or position during his tenure.
• Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position,
no appointive official shall hold any other office or employment in the
Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries (See,
Civil Liberties Union vs. ES, 194 SCRA 317; See, Article 13, Art. VII).
• SECTION 13. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may
hold any other office or employment in the Government, or any subdivision,
agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term without forfeiting his seat.
Neither shall he be appointed to any office which may have been created or
the emoluments thereof increased during the term for which he was elected
(Article VI).
• SECTION 12. The Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts
established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-
judicial or administrative functions (Art. VIII).
• SECTION 2. No Member of a Constitutional Commission
shall, during his tenure, hold any other office or employment.
Neither shall he engage in the practice of any profession or in
the active management or control of any business which in any
way be affected by the functions of his office, nor shall he be
financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with,
or in any franchise or privilege granted by the Government, any
of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including
government-owned or controlled corporations or their
subsidiaries (Sec. 2, Article IX-A).
• SECTION 8. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be
natural-born citizens of the Philippines, and at the time of their
appointment, at least forty years old, of recognized probity and
independence, and members of the Philippine Bar, and must
not have been candidates for any elective office in the
immediately preceding election. The Ombudsman must have
for ten years or more been a judge or engaged in the practice of
law in the Philippines (Article XI).
• SECTION 11. The Ombudsman and his Deputies
shall serve for a term of seven years without
reappointment. They shall not be qualified to run for
any office in the election immediately succeeding their
cessation from office (Article XI).
De Facto Officer
• An officer de facto is one who has the reputation of being
the officer he assumes to be, and yet is not a good officer in
point of law. (Torres vs. Ribo, 81 Phil. 44). He must have
acted as an officer for such a length of time, under color of
title and under such circumstances of reputation or
acquiescence by the public and public authorities, as to
afford a presumption of appointment or election, and
induce people, without inquiry, and relying on the
supposition that he is the officer he assumes to be, to submit
to or invoke his action (46 C. J., 1053).
Elements of De Facto Officer
Validity of existing office
Actual physical possession of said office
Color of title to the office

Commencement of Official Relations
By By
By election
appointment designation
Classification of Appointment
• It is extended to person who possesses

Permanent the requisite qualification and eligibility
required for the position.
• It is extended to one who may possess

Temporary the requisite qualification and eligibility.
Power to Appoint
• Section 16, Article VII
• The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments, appoint the 1) heads of the executive departments, 2)
ambassadors, 3) other public ministers and consuls, or 4) officers of the armed
forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and 5) other officers whose
appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also appoint all
other officers of the Government whose appointments are not
otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be authorized
by law to appoint. The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of
other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in
the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards.
Power to Appoint
• Section 16, Article VII

• The President shall have the power to make
appointments during the recess of the Congress,
whether voluntary or compulsory, but such
appointments shall be effective only until after
disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or
until the next adjournment of the Congress.
in relation to the Power of C.A.
REGULAR
A regular appointment is one made by the President
while Congress is in session; takes effect only after
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments,
and once approved, continues until the end of the term
of the appointee.
in relation to the Power of C.A.
AD INTERIM
Ad interim appointment is one made by the President
while Congress is in recess; takes effect immediately
until revoked by the Commission on Appointments.
Cases on Presidential Appointment
Sarmiento vs. Mison, 156 SCRA 549

Calderon vs. Carale, 208 SCRA 254
Matibag vs. Benipayo, April 2, 2002
Pimentel vs. Ermita, October 13, 2005
Abas Kida vs. Senate, February 28, 2012
Flores vs. Drilon, June 22, 1993

Section 15, Art. VII
• Two months immediately before the next presidential

elections up to the end of his term, a President or
Acting President shall not make appointments except
temporary appointments to executive positions when
continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service
or endanger public safety.
Does Sec. 15, Art. VII apply to appointment
in judiciary?
• NO.
• Prohibition under Section 15, Article VII does
not apply to appointments to fill a vacancy in the
Supreme Court or to other appointments to the
Judiciary
Velicaria-Garafil vs. Office of the
President, June 16, 2015
• The signing of the appointing papers and

the transmittal of the same was made before
the ban but the acceptance and oath of
office happened during the ban. Is the
appointment valid?
• The following elements should always concur in the
making of a valid appointment:
• (1) authority to appoint and evidence of the exercise
of the authority; (2) transmittal of the appointment
paper and evidence of the transmittal; (3) a vacant
position at the time of appointment; and (4) receipt
of the appointment paper and acceptance of the
appointment by the appointee who possesses all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications.
• The concurrence of all these elements should
always apply, regardless of when the
appointment is made, whether outside, just
before, or during the appointment ban. These
steps in the appointment process should always
concur and operate as a single process. There is
no valid appointment if the process lacks even
one step.
Other personnel actions
• Promotion – movement from one position to
another with increase in duties and responsibilities as
authorized by law and usually accompanied by an
increase in pay.
• Appointment through certification – it is issued to
a person who has been selected from the list of
qualified persons certified by the CSC from an
appropriate register of eligible who meets all the
qualifications prescribed for the position.
• Transfer – a movement from one position to another
which is of equivalent rank, level or salary without break
in service. Under the current Civil Service rules and
regulations, transfer may be imposed as a penalty.
• Reinstatement – any person who has been permanently
appointed to a position and who has, though no
delinquency or misconduct, has been separated
therefrom, may be reinstated to the position in the same
level for which he is qualified.
• Reassignment – it is a 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.
• Reemployment – names of persons who have been
appointed permanently to positions in the career service
and who had been separated as a result of reduction in
force or re-organization, shall be entered in a list from
which selection for reemployment shall be made.
Power to Remove
• Gonzalez vs. Office of the President, September 4,
2012.
• Gonzalez III was removed by the office of the president
on the ground of betrayal of public trust. It should be
noted that under the Ombudsman Law (RA 6770), the
grounds for removing deputy ombudsman are the same
grounds for removing Ombudsman. These are: 1) culpable
violation of the constitution; 2) treason; 3) bribery; 4) graft
and corruption; 5) other high crimes; 6) betrayal of public
trust.
Power to Remove
• Gonzalez vs. Office of the President, September 4,
2012.
• Would every negligent act or misconduct in the

performance of a Deputy Ombudsman's duties
constitute betrayal of public trust warranting immediate
removal from office?
Power to Remove
• Gonzalez vs. Office of the President, September 4, 2012.
• NO.
• The Constitutional Commission eventually found it reasonably
acceptable for the phrase betrayal of public trust to refer to "[a]cts
which are just short of being criminal but constitute gross
faithlessness against public trust, tyrannical abuse of power,
inexcusable negligence of duty, favoritism, and gross exercise
of discretionary powers." In other words, acts that should
constitute betrayal of public trust as to warrant removal from office
may be less than criminal but must be attended by bad faith and of
such gravity and seriousness as the other grounds for impeachment.
Power to Remove
• Gonzalez vs. Office of the President, January 28,
2014.
• Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770 vesting disciplinary
authority in the President over the Deputy
Ombudsman violates the independence of the
Office of the Ombudsman and is thus
unconstitutional. The same treatment should be
given to Special Prosecutor.
Modes of terminating official relationship
• Expiration of term or tenure
• Reaching the age limit
• Resignation
• Recall
• Removal
• Abandonment
• Acceptance of an incompatible office
Modes of terminating official relationship
• Abolition of office
• Prescription of the right to office
• Impeachment
• Death
• Failure to assume elective office within six months
from proclamation
• Conviction of a crime
• Filing of certificate of Candidacy
Article XI
ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC
OFFICERS
STATEMENT OF POLICY
• Article XI, Section 1
• Public office is a public trust. Public officers and
employees must, at all times, be accountable to the
people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity,
loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice,
and lead modest lives.
IMPEACHMENT
Impeachable Officers
Chief Justice and

Associate Justices
President Vice-President
of the Supreme
Court
Chairmen and
Commissioners of
Ombudsman
the Constitutional
Commissions
Grounds for Impeachment
Culpable Treason.
Violation of Bribery, Graft Other High Betrayal of
the and Crimes Public Trust
Constitution Corruption
Meaning of betrayal of
public trust
• Acts which are just short of being criminal but constitute gross
unfaithfulness against public trust, tyrannical abuse of power,
inexcusable negligence of duty, favoritism, and gross exercise of
discretionary powers. In other words, acts must be attended with
bad faith and of such gravity and seriousness as other grounds
for impeachment.
• Gonzales vs. OP, September 4, 2012
Procedure for Impeachment
(Section 3, Article XI)
A verified complaint for
impeachment may be Included in the order The Committee upon
filed by any member of of business within 10 majority vote of all its
the HoR or by any session days, and members, shall submit
citizen upon a referred to proper its report which should
Resolution of committee within 3 be done within 60 days
endorsement by any sessions days after referral
Member
If the verified A vote of at least 1/3 of

complaint is filed by at all the members of the
least 1/3 of all the House shall be
members of the House, necessary either to
the same shall affirm a favourable
constitute the Articles resolution or override
of Impeachment its contrary resolution
Limitation on the Power
to Impeach
• No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated

against the same official more than once within a
period of one year.
• Section 3(5), Article XI

What is meant by “Initiation”
• Francisco vs. House of Representatives
• The SC gives the term “initiate” different from “filing.”

The impeachment is deemed initiated when the
complaint(with accompanying resolution of
endorsement) has been filed with the HoR and referred
to appropriate Committee.
Can there be multiple grounds in an
impeachment complaint?
• Gutierrez vs. The House of Representatives,

Feb. 25, 2011, rules that “an impeachment
complaint need not alleged only one impeachable
offense.” In fact, multiple complaints may be
considered so long as they would all be
simultaneously referred or endorsed to the proper
committee.
Trial and Decision
• The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide
all cases of impeachment. When sitting for that
purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation.
When the President of the Philippines is on trial, the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but
shall not vote. A decision of conviction must be
concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the
members of the Senate.
Effect of Conviction
•Removal from office and disqualification to
hold any office under the Republic of the
Philippines. But the party convicted shall
be liable and subject to prosecution, trial
and punishment according to law.
Ombudsman
Constitutional Underpinnings
• There is hereby created the independent Office
of the Ombudsman, composed of the
Ombudsman to be known as Tanodbayan, one
overall Deputy and at least one Deputy each for
Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. A separate
Deputy for the military establishment may
likewise be appointed.
Qualifications
• The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be natural-born
citizens of the Philippines, and at the time of their
appointment, at least forty years old, of recognized probity
and independence, and members of the Philippine Bar,
and must not have been candidates for any elective office
in the immediately preceding election. The Ombudsman
must have, for ten years or more, been a judge or engaged
in the practice of law in the Philippines.
How appointed?
• By the President
• From the list of at least six nominees prepared by the JBC and at
least three nominees thereafter
• For a term of 7 years
• Appointment requires no CA confirmation
• All vacancies shall be filled up within 3 months from the
occurrence of vacancy.
• No re-appointment
Article XII
NATIONAL ECONOMY AND
PATRIMONY
“State Dominium”
• Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal,
petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy,
fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other
natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of
agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The
exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be
under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may
directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production,
joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens,
or corporations or associations at least 60 per centum of whose capital
is owned by such citizens.
State Dominium
• Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years,
renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and
conditions as may provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation,
water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of
waterpower, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.
• The State shall protect the nations marine wealth in its archipelagic waters,
territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and
enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.
• The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources
by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to
subsistence fishermen and fish workers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.
“State Dominium”
• The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned
corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for
large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals,
petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and
conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the
economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such
agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of
local scientific and technical resources.
• The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered
into in accordance with this provision, within thirty days from its
execution.
What is “regalian doctrine”?
• All lands are owned by the “Crown.” This is
reflected in the 1987 Constitution. Thus:
• “All lands of the public domain, waters,
minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral
oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries,
forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna,
and other natural resources are owned by
the State.”
What is the consequence of the “regalian
doctrine”?
• The exploration, development, and utilization
of natural resources shall be under the full
control and supervision of the State.
• Any person claiming ownership of a portion of
the public domain must be able to show title
from the state according to any of the
recognized modes of acquisition of title.
If a person is the owner of agricultural land in which
minerals are discovered, does his ownership of such land
give him the right to extract or utilize the said minerals
without the permission of the State?
No. The minerals are owned by the State

under the “regalian doctrine”. The land is
thus converted into mineral land. For the
loss sustained by the owner, he is entitled
to compensation. (Republic vs. CA, 160
SCRA 228)
Are there lands which are not covered by
regalian doctrine?
• Yes. When, as far back as testimony or memory
goes, the land has been held by individuals under a
claim of private ownership, it will be presumed that
to have been held in the same way from before the
Spanish conquest, and never to have been public
land.
• Carino vs. Insurer, 41 Phil. 935; Cruz vs. DENR
Who are qualified to take part with the State in the
exploration, development and utilization of natural
resources?
The State may enter into “co-production,

joint venture, or production sharing
agreement with Filipino citizens, or
corporations, associations at least sixty per
cent of whose capital is owned by Filipino
citizens.
May foreign corporation participate in
the EDU of mineral resources?
Yes. The President may enter into

agreements with Foreign-owned corporations
involving either technical or financial
assistance for large scale EDU of mineral,
petroleum and other mineral oils. (Sec. 2)
What may “financial or technical
assistance” involve?
It may involve management or

operation of mining activities. (La
Bugal B’laan Tribal Assoc. vs.
Ramos, December 1, 2004)
Section 3
• Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest
or timber, mineral lands and national parks. Agricultural lands of
the public domain may be further classified by law according to the
uses to which they may be devoted. Alienable lands of the public
domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. Private
corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of
the public domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding
twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and
not to exceed one thousand hectares in area. Citizens of the
Philippines may lease not more than five hundred hectares, or acquire
not more than twelve hectares thereof, by purchase, homestead, or
grant.
Who has the authority to classify public
lands?
The authority to classify
public lands is the
exclusive prerogative of
the Executive
Department. In the
Director of
absence of such
classification, the lands
Lands vs. CA,
remains unclassified land 129 SCRA 22
until released therefrom
and rendered open to
disposition
May a corporation acquire
alienable lands of public domain?
No. Private corporation or association may not

hold alienable lands of public domain except thru
lease for a period of 25 years extendible for
another 25 years covering not more than 1000
hectares.
May a corporation acquire private
lands?
Yes. Private land means any land of private

ownership. This includes both lands owned by
private individual and lands which are patrimonial
property of the State or of Municipal
corporations.
Section 7
• Save in cases of hereditary succession, no
private lands shall be transferred or conveyed
except to individuals, corporations, or
associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of
the public domain.
Section 8
• Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of

this Article, a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines who has lost his Philippine
citizenship may be a transferee of private lands,
subject to limitations provided by law.
Who may acquire private land?
Filipino citizens
Filipino corporations or associations
Former natural born-citizens
Aliens, by virtue of hereditary succession

Prospective Bar Question
When husband and wife purport to buy

land, and the husband is alien while the
wife is Filipino, is the property conjugal
such that it may not be disposed of
without the consent of the husband?
Answer
The property cannot be deemed conjugal

because of the incapability of the alien
husband to own private land. Thus, the
alien husband has no capacity to question
the sale made by the Filipino wife.
(Cheesman vs. IAC, 193 SCRA 93)
May a Filipino seller question

the legality of sale he made
in favour of an alien. Will
pari delicto apply?
Answer
The seller may question the sale

made to the alien. The principle of
pari delicto is not applicable
(Philippine Banking
corporation vs. Lui She, [1967]).
Can a corporation sole

controlled by non-Filipinos
acquire private lands?
Answer
No. Land tenure is not indispensable to the free

exercise of religion. Thus, a religious corporation
controlled by non-Filipinos, cannot acquire and
own lands even for religious use or purpose.
(RD vs. Ung Sui Si Temple, [1955])
What is the limitations on the right

of the former natural born Filipino
citizens to own lands in the
Philippines?
Answer
1. Maximum of 5000 square meters in urban

areas
2. 3 hectares in rural areas
3. Not more than 2 lots as long as the maximum
area allowed is not violated. (RA 8179)
Section 11
• No franchise, certificate, or any other form of

authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be
granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to
corporations or associations organized under the laws of
the Philippines, at least sixty per centum of whose
capital is owned by such citizens; nor shall such
franchise, certificate, or authorization be exclusive
in character or for a longer period than fifty years.
Section 11
• Neither shall any such franchise or right be granted except under
the condition that it shall be subject to amendment,
alteration, or repeal by the Congress when the common
good so requires. The State shall encourage equity
participation in public utilities by the general public. The
participation of foreign investors in the governing body of any
public utility enterprise shall be limited to their proportionate
share in its capital, and all the executive and managing
officers of such corporation or association must be citizens
of the Philippines.
What is a public utility?
• It is a utility corporation which renders service to the public for

compensation. Its essential feature is that its service is not
confined to privileged individuals but is open to an indefinite
public. The public or private character of a utility does not
depend on the number of person who avail of its service but on
whether or not it is open to serve all members of the public who
may require it.
What is the meaning of 60%
capital ownership?
• Mere legal title is insufficient to meet the 60 percent Filipino

owned “capital” required in the Constitution. Full beneficial
ownership of 60 percent of the outstanding capital
stock, coupled with 60 percent of the voting rights, is
required. The legal and beneficial ownership of 60
percent of the outstanding capital stock must rest in the
hands of Filipino nationals in accordance with the
constitutional mandate. Otherwise, the corporation is
“considered as non-Philippine national[s].” (Gamboa vs.
Finance Secretary, [2011])
What is the meaning of 60%
capital ownership?
• Since the constitutional requirement of at least 60 percent Filipino

ownership applies not only to voting control of the corporation
but also to the beneficial ownership of the corporation, it is
therefore imperative that such requirement apply uniformly and
across the board to all classes of shares, regardless of
nomenclature and category, comprising the capital of a
corporation. Under the Corporation Code, capital stock consists
of all classes of shares issued to stockholders, that is, common
shares as well as preferred shares, which may have different rights,
privileges or restrictions as stated in the articles of incorporation.
(Gamboa vs. Finance Secretary, MR [2012])
Last Paragraph, Section 14
•The practice of all professions in the

Philippines shall be limited to Filipino
citizens, save in cases prescribed by
law.
Section 17
• In times of national emergency, when the public

interest so requires, the State may, during the
emergency and under reasonable terms
prescribed by it, temporarily take over or direct
the operation of any privately-owned public
utility or business affected with public interest.
Is the taking of privately owned utility
by the State under Section 17, subject
to payment of just compensation?
No. Because the taking under Section 7,

Article XII is by virtue of the police power
of the State. (Agan vs. PIATCO, [2004])
In case of national emergency, may the President take
over the operation of any privately owned public utility?
The power is not automatically conferred to the President.

The power to take over the operation of public utilities is
activated only of Congress grants emergency powers under
Section 23(2), Article VI. Section 17 must be read with
Article VI, Section 23(2). Section 17 gives the power to the
State not to the President. The president acquires emergency
powers when given by Congress in a state of emergency
declared by Congress. (David vs. Arroyo, [2006]).
Section 18
•The State may, in the interest of national
welfare or defense, establish and operate
vital industries and, upon payment of just
compensation, transfer to public
ownership utilities and other private
enterprises to be operated by the
Government.
Article XIII
SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN
RIGHTS
Section 3
• The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas,
organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and
equality of employment opportunities for all.
• It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to 1. self-organization, 2.
collective bargaining and negotiations, and 3. peaceful
concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance
with law. They shall be entitled to 4. security of tenure, 5. humane
conditions of work, and a 6. living wage. They shall also 7.
participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting
their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.
Section 3: Labor
• The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between
workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in
settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual
compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
• The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers,
recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production
and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns to investments, and to
expansion and growth.
Bar Question
• Congressman Cheng says he is one of the co-authors of the
SBMA Charter. He declares that the SBMA is the answer to
rapid economic growth and the attainment of the President’s
“Philippine 2000” dream. However, Cheng is worried that
foreign capital might be slow in coming in due to unstable
working conditions resulting from too many strikes. To remedy
this situation, Cheng proposes an amendment to SBMA law
declaring it to be as strike-free zone or total ban on strikes?
Explain briefly.
Answer
• The proposal is not legally defensible. Section 3,

Article XIII guarantees the right of all workers to
engage in peaceful concerted activities, including the
right to strike. Thus, the proposal will violate this
constitutional provision.
Section 4: Agrarian Reform
• The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on

the right of farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, to own
directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other
farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the
State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural
lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the
Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or
equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation.
In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small
landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-
sharing.
Is stock distribution transfer constitutional?
• The wording of the provision is unequivocal––the farmers and regular

farmworkers have a right TO OWN DIRECTLY OR COLLECTIVELY
THE LANDS THEY TILL. The basic law allows two (2) modes of land
distribution—direct and indirect ownership. Direct transfer to individual
farmers is the most commonly used method by DAR and widely accepted.
Indirect transfer through collective ownership of the agricultural land is
the alternative to direct ownership of agricultural land by individual
farmers.
Is stock distribution transfer
constitutional?
• The aforequoted Sec. 4 EXPRESSLY authorizes collective
ownership by farmers. No language can be found in the 1987
Constitution that disqualifies or prohibits corporations or
cooperatives of farmers from being the legal entity through which
collective ownership can be exercised. xxx. Clearly, workers’
cooperatives or associations under Sec. 29 of RA 6657 and
corporations or associations under the succeeding Sec. 31, as
differentiated from individual farmers, are authorized vehicles for
the collective ownership of agricultural land.
Is stock distribution transfer
constitutional?
• Cooperatives can be registered with the Cooperative
Development Authority and acquire legal personality of their
own, while corporations are juridical persons under the
Corporation Code. Thus, Sec. 31 is constitutional as it simply
implements Sec. 4 of Art. XIII of the Constitution that land
can be owned COLLECTIVELY by farmers. (Hacienda
Luisita Incorporated v. Luisita Industrial Park
Corporation, G.R. No. 171101, July 5, 2011)
Section 17: Human Rights
• There is hereby created an independent office called the

Commission on Human Rights.
• The Commission shall be composed of a Chairman
and four Members who must be natural-born citizens
of the Philippines and a majority of whom shall be
members of the Bar. The term of office and other
qualifications and disabilities of the Members of the
Commission shall be provided by law.
Section 17: Human Rights
• Until this Commission is constituted, the

existing Presidential Committee on Human
Rights shall continue to exercise its present
functions and powers.
• The approved annual appropriations of the
Commission shall be automatically and regularly
released.
Powers of CHR
•In essence the power of CHR is only

investigatory. It has no prosecutorial
powers.
Does CHR have jurisdiction over cases
involving socio-economic rights?
No. The Constitution provides that the

CHR has the power to “investigate, on its
own or on complaint by any party, all forms
of human rights violations involving civil
and political rights.” (Section 18, Article
XIII; Simon, Jr. vs. CHR, [1994]).

Election Law Reviewer

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Election Law Reviewer

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW

2018 BAR EXAMINATION

JUDGE GENER M. GITO, LL.M., D.C.L.

• The right to vote in the election of officers

• Does Section 5(d) of Rep. Act No. 9189 allowing the

 On February 15, 2001, President Gloria Macapagal-

• Following the retirement of Carague on February 2,

Carague’s term Villar’s term as

1. Enforce and administer all laws and

COMELEC has the power to annul the results

• 2. “Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all

• 3. “Decide, except those involving the right to

• And appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving

 Yes. Since it is the COMELEC that has jurisdiction over appeals

What is the jurisdiction of COMELEC

 Sarmiento vs. Comelec, 212 SCRA 307

 Municipal Board of Canvassers vs. COMELEC,

• Petition for correction of manifest errors alleges an

 No. Under Section (3), Article IX-C, the

The sole judge of all contests

• Article IX-C, Section 5

• Under Section 265, B.P. 881, the COMELEC is granted

• There is no hard and fast rule to determine the candidates’

• (b) Those removed from office as a result of an administrative

• Grego vs. COMELEC, June 19, 1997 – a candidate who was

• (e) Fugitives from justice in criminal or non-political cases here

• Rodriguez vs. COMELEC, July 24, 1996 – the petitioner was

• SECTION 68. Disqualifications. — Any candidate who, in an action or

• SECTION 68. Disqualifications.

 Chairman and 2 Commissioners

Embraces all branches, subdivisions,

 Government owned and controlled corporations

 Government instrumentalities with corporate

Policy determining – one charged with laying

One denoting not only confidence in the

One who possess technical skill or training in

“No officer or employee of civil service shall be

Where there is actually no abolition of office

Article IX-B, Section 2(4)

Seneres vs. Comelec (2009)

Article IX-B, Section 2(4)

Article IX-B, Section 2(5)

This does not include the right to strike.

Article IX-B, Section 2(6)

Section 7, Article IX-B

• No elective official shall be eligible for

X was elected provincial governor for a term of

No. Under Section 7, Article IX-B, No

 Article IX-B, Section 8

• It may refer of endowments,

Validity of existing office

Actual physical possession of said office

Color of title to the office

• It is extended to person who possesses

• It is extended to one who may possess

• Section 16, Article VII

Sarmiento vs. Mison, 156 SCRA 549

Matibag vs. Benipayo, April 2, 2002

Pimentel vs. Ermita, October 13, 2005

Abas Kida vs. Senate, February 28, 2012

Flores vs. Drilon, June 22, 1993

• Two months immediately before the next presidential

• The signing of the appointing papers and