Constitutional Law 1

FACTS: Dela Torres, Canonizado, Pureza and Adiong were appointed Commissioners of NAPOLCOM. They were appointed separately, in various years and their terms had not expired at the time the amendatory law to R.A. 6975 was passed. R.A. 8551 declared the terms of sitting commissioners as expired upon its effectivity. ISSUE(S): Whether or not petitioners were removed by virtue of a valid abolition. HELD: NO. Under R.A. 6975, the NAPOLCOM ws described a collegial body within the DILG whereas R.A. 8551 made it an agency attached to the department for policy and program coordination. This does not result in the creation…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Some 800 school teachers undertook a mass concerted action to protest the alleged failure of public authorities to act upon their grievance. The Secretary of Education served them an order to return to work within 24 hours or face dismissal. For failure to heed to the return-to-work order, eight teachers were administratively charged and preventively suspended for 90 days. ISSUE(S): Whether or not CHR has jurisdiction to try and hear the issues involved. HELD: NO. The Constitution clearly and categorically grants to the CHR the power to investigate all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights.…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Petitioner sought to restrain the Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan Raul Gonzales from proceeding with the prosecution and hearing of criminal cases against him on the ground that sid cases were filed by said Tanodbayan without legal and constitutional authority. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the Tanodbayan has the authority to conduct preliminary investigations and to direct the filing of criminal cases with the Sandiganbayan. HELD: Under the present Constitution, the Special Prosecutor is a mere subordinate of the Tanodbayan and can investigate and prosecute cases only upon the latter’s authority or orders. The Special Prosecutor cannot initiate the prosecution of cases…

Keep Reading

FACTS: The San Juan School Club filed a letter-complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman charging respondent with violation of Section 1 of Rule IV and Section 1 of Rule VI of the rules implementing R.A. 6713. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman has the authority to impose administrative sanctions over public officials. HELD: YES. Article XI, Section 13 of the Constitution grants petitioner administrative disciplinary powers to investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official, employee, office or agent, when such act or omission appears to…

Keep Reading

FACTS: An investigation was requested on alleged anomalies surrounding the extension of the Temporary Resident Visas of two foreign nationals. Graft Investigator resolved the administrative case suspending petitioner for a year. The criminal case was dismissed. ISSUE(S): Whether or not in finding petitioner administratively liable, Ombudsman has encroached into the power of the Bureau of Immigration over immigration matters. HELD: NO. The creation of the Office of the Ombudsman is a unique feature of the 1987 Constitution. The Ombudsman and his deputies, as protectors of the people, are mandated to act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Petitioner filed an affidavit-criminal complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against respondents for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019. After finding probable cause, Ombudsman recommended the filing of information against the malefactors. Respondent filed with the Sandiganbayan a joint motion for reconsideration which was granted. ISSUE(S): Whether or not Sandiganbayan violated Section 27 of R.A. 6770. HELD: NO. When the Office of the Ombudsman approved the resolution prepared by the Graft Infestigator, the information was filed prematurely against the respondents.

Keep Reading

FACTS: The PC-INP invited bids for thie supply of sixty-five units of fire trucks. The COA discovered irregularities in the bidding prompting DILG Secretary to file a complaint for violation of SEction 3(e) of the R.A. 3019 before the Ombudsman. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the Court may interfere in the case. HELD: NO. The Court maintains a policy of non-interference in the determination of the Ombudsman of the existence of probable cause, provided there is no grave abuse of discretion.

Keep Reading

FACTS: Petitioner assailed the validity of P.D. 1486 creating the Sandiganbayan as amended by P.D. 1606. He was accused before the Sandiganbayan for estafa through falsification of public documents committed in connivance with his other co-accused, all public officials, in several cases. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the creation of Sandiganbayan violates equal protection insofar as appeals would be concerned. HELD: NO. The Constitution specifically makes mention of the creation of a special court, the Sandiganbayan, precisely in response to a problem, the urgency of which cannot be denied, namely, dishonesty in the public service.

Keep Reading

FACTS: The NHMFC issued a letter of guaranty in favor of Severio H. Gonzales Construction Corporation Inc. (SHGCCI). Due to the assurance that the project is above board and in accordance with the NHMFC-CMP guidelines, petitioner approved the payment to SHGCCI. Upon verification, it was discovered that the project was three months in arrears in their amortization. As a consequence, petitioner tasked the Committee on Evaluation to investigate. ISSUE(S): Whether or not COA committed a grave abuse of discretion when it held petitioner liable for the payment of the loan. HELD: YES. It is the basic tenet of due process…

Keep Reading

FACTS: DBP conducted a public bidding for one unit of uninterruptible power supply (UPS). Thereafter, DBP issued Purchase Order No. 0137 to Voltronics for P1,436,539.25 inclusive of customs duties and taxes. COA sent a notice to the chairman of DBP notifying him of the disallowance of the amount of P246,539.25 representing customs duties and taxes and at the same time holding him, along with other petitioners, jointly and severally liable for the aforementioned sum. ISSUE(S): Whether or not COA is allowed to conduct post audit. HELD: YES. Article IX-D, Section 2(1) of the Constitution expressly grants the commission the power…

Keep Reading