MIDTERM CASE DIGEST

BANAT VS. COMELECG.R. No. 179271 April 21, 2009

SUMMARY OF FACTS:May 14, 2007 ElectionsAugust 3, 2007- BANAT assails the Resolution Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in NBC No. 07-041 (PL). 9 July 2007- Bayan Muna assails the NBC Resolution No. 07-60 and the COMELEC announced that, upon completion of the canvass of the party-list results, it would determine the total number of seats of each winning party, organization, or coalition in accordance with Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC[5] (Veterans).

On 27 June 2002, Petitioner BANAT together with other similarly situated party list group file before the Supreme Court titled as “Petition to Proclaim the Full Number of Party-List Representatives Provided by the Constitution”.

Acting on BANAT’s petition, the NBC promulgated NBC Resolution No. 07-88 on 3 August 2007 that ruled the petition as moot and academic.

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT ISSUES:

Is the twenty per cent allocation for party-list representatives provided in Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution mandatory or is it merely a ceiling?

Is the three-seat limit provided in Section 11(b) of RA 7941 constitutional?

Is the two per cent threshold and “qualifier” votes prescribed by the same Section 11(b) of RA 7941 constitutional?

SUPREME COURT’S RULING:

Answer. We rule that, in computing the allocation of additional seats, the continued operation of the two percent threshold for the distribution of the additional seats as found in the second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 is unconstitutional. This Court finds that the two percent threshold makes it mathematically impossible to achieve the maximum number of available party list seats when the number of available party list seats exceeds 50. The continued operation of the two per cent threshold in the distribution of the additional seats frustrates the attainment of the

permissive ceiling that 20% of the members of the House of Representatives shall consist of party-list representatives.

How shall the party-list representatives be allocated?

Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution, on the other hand, states the ratio of party-list representatives to the total number of representatives. We compute the number of seats available to party-list representatives from the number of legislative districts. On this point, we do not deviate from the first formula in Veterans, thus:

Number of seats available to legislative districts x .20  =

Number of seats available toparty-list representatives

.80 

This formula allows for the corresponding increase in the number of seats available for party-list representatives whenever a legislative district is created by law. Since the 14th Congress of the Philippines has 220 district representatives, there are 55 seats available to party-list representatives.

220 x .20  = 55

.80

ATONG PAGLAUM, INC vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONSG.R. No. 203766 April 2, 2013

SUMMARY OF FACTS:These cases constitute 54 Petitions for Certiorari and Petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition1 filed by 52 party-list groups and organizations assailing the Resolutions issued by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) disqualifying them from participating in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections, either by denial of their petitions for registration under the party-list system, or cancellation of their registration and accreditation as party-list organizations.

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT ISSUES:

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in disqualifying petitioners from participating in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections, either by denial of their new petitions

for registration under the party-list system, or by cancellation of their existing registration and accreditation as party-list organizations; and second, whether the criteria for participating in the party-list system laid down in (BANAT) should be applied by the COMELEC in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections.

SUPREME COURT’S RULING:

We hold that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in following prevailing decisions of this Court in disqualifying petitioners from participating in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections. However, since the Court adopts in this Decision new parameters in the qualification of national, regional, and sectoral parties under the party-list system, thereby abandoning the rulings in the decisions applied by the COMELEC in disqualifying petitioners, we remand to the COMELEC all the present petitions for the COMELEC to determine who are qualified to register under the party-list system, and to participate in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections, under the new parameters prescribed in this Decision.

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS) vs. DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARDG.R. No. 157870 November 3, 2008

Summary of Facts:Three petitions were filed before the Supreme Court assailing the constitutionality of the various provisions in Section 36 of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.The first petition seeks (1) to nullify Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 dated December 23, 2003 for being unconstitutional in that they impose a qualification for candidates for senators in addition to those already provided for in the 1987 Constitution; and (2) to enjoin the COMELEC from implementing Resolution No. 6486.The second seeks to prohibit the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) from enforcing paragraphs (c), (d), (f), and (g) of Sec. 36 of RA 9165 on the ground that they are constitutionally infirm.And the third was to strike down as unconstitutional Sec. 36(c), (d), (f), and (g) of RA 9165 for infringing on the constitutional right to privacy, the right against unreasonable search and seizure, and the right against self-incrimination, and for being contrary to the due process and equal protection guarantees.

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT ISSUES:

Whether or not the various paragraphs in Section 36 of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 is constitutional.

SUPREME COURT’S RULING:Pimentel’s contention is well-taken. Accordingly, Sec. 36 (g) of RA 9165 should be, as it is hereby declared as, unconstitutional. It is basic that if a law or an administrative rule violates any norm of the Constitution, that issuance is null and void and has no effect. The Constitution is the basic law to which all laws must conform; no act shall be valid if it conflicts with the Constitution.

Guided by Vernonia and Board of Education, the Court is of the view and so holds that the provisions of RA 9165 requiring mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug testing of students are constitutional. Indeed, it is within the prerogative of educational institutions to require, as a condition for admission, compliance with reasonable school rules and regulations and policies. To be sure, the right to enroll is not absolute; it is subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable requirements.

To impose mandatory drug testing on the accused is a blatant attempt to harness a medical test as a tool for criminal prosecution, contrary to the stated objectives of RA 9165. Drug testing in this case would violate a persons’ right to privacy guaranteed under Sec. 2, Art. III of the Constitution. Worse still, the accused persons are veritably forced to incriminate themselves.

REPRESENTATIVE DANILO RAMON S. FERNANDEZ vs. HRETG. R. No. 187478 December 21, 2009

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

Petitioner filed for candidacy as Representative of the First Legislative District of the Province of Laguna in the May 14, 2007 elections. In his Certificate of Candidacy (COC), he indicated his complete/exact address as “No. 13 Maharlika St., Villa Toledo Subdivision, Barangay Balibago, Sta. Rosa City, Laguna” (alleged Sta. Rosa residence).

Private respondent Jesus L. Vicente (private respondent) filed a “Petition to Deny Due Course to and/or Cancel Certificate of Candidacy and Petition for Disqualification but the COMELEC (First Division) dismissed said petition for lack of merit.

Petitioner was proclaimed as the duly elected Representative of the First District of Laguna on June 27, 2007, having garnered a total of 95,927 votes, winning by a margin of 35,000 votes over the nearest candidate.

On July 5, 2007, private respondent filed a petition for quo warranto before the HRET citing as main ground for the quo warranto petition that petitioner lacked the required one-year residency requirement provided under Article VI, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution. Since the HRET ruled in favor of private respondent, petitioner ran to the Supreme Court for legal succour.

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT ISSUES:

The issues for determination are: (1) whether the HRET had jurisdiction over the case; and (2) whether petitioner sufficiently complied with the one-year residency requirement to be a Member of the House of Representatives, as provided in the 1987 Constitution.

SUPREME COURT’S RULING:

The SC did not agree. The 1987 Constitution explicitly provides under Article VI, Section 17 thereof that the HRET and the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) shall be the sole judges of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective members. The authority conferred upon the Electoral Tribunal is full, clear and complete. The use of the word sole emphasizes the exclusivity of the jurisdiction of these Tribunals,[33] which is conferred upon the HRET and the SET after elections and the proclamation of the winning candidates. A candidate who has not been proclaimed and who has not taken his oath of office cannot be said to be a member of the House of Representatives. [34] Thus, private respondent correctly pointed out that a petition for quo warranto is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the HRET, and cannot be considered forum shopping even if, as in this case, the COMELEC had already passed upon in administrative or quasi-judicial proceedings the issue of the qualification of the Member of the House of Representatives while the latter was still a candidate.

RENALD F. VILANDO vs. HRETG.R. Nos. 192147 & 192149 August 23, 2011

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

Private respondent Jocelyn Sy Limkaichong is again obliged to answer the legality of her citizenship by her detractors, among others herein Petiotioner Renald F. Villando.

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT ISSUES:

Whether or not private respondent Jocelyn Sy Limkaichong is a legitimate Member of the House of Representatives owing to her dual citizenship.

SUPREME COURT’S RULING:

GAUDENCIO M. CORDORA vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONSG.R. No. 176947 February 19, 2009

Summary of Facts:Petitioner Cordora filed before the COMELEC Law Department a complaint affidavit that Tambunting made false assertions in his Certificate of Candidacy for the 2001 elections and that he was not eligible to run for local public office because Tambunting lacked the required citizenship and residency requirements. By proving such false assertion Cordora submitted a certification from the Bureau of Immigration which stated that, in two instances, Tambunting claimed that he is an American: upon arrival in the Philippines on 16 December 2000 and upon departure from the Philippines on 17 June 2001. According to Cordora, these travel dates confirmed that Tambunting acquired American citizenship through naturalization in Honolulu, Hawaii on 2 December 2000.

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT ISSUES:

Whether or not the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it declared that there is no sufficient evidence to support probable cause that may warrant the prosecution of Tambunting for an election offense.

SUPREME COURT’S RULING:

The Supreme Court held that there was no grave abuse of discretion in the COMELEC En Banc’s ruling that there is no sufficient and convincing evidence to support a finding of probable cause to hold Tambunting for trial for violation of Section 74 in relation to Section 262 of the Omnibus Election Code.

Furthermore the High Court agreed with with Commissioner Sarmiento’s observation that Tambunting possesses dual citizenship. Because of the circumstances of his birth, it was no longer necessary for Tambunting to undergo the naturalization process to acquire American citizenship. The

process involved in INS Form I-130 only served to confirm the American citizenship which Tambunting acquired at birth. The certification from the Bureau of Immigration which Cordora presented contained two trips where Tambunting claimed that he is an American. However, the same certification showed nine other trips where Tambunting claimed that he is Filipino. Clearly, Tambunting possessed dual citizenship prior to the filing of his certificate of candidacy before the 2001 elections. The fact that Tambunting had dual citizenship did not disqualify him from running for public office.