7/18/2015MIGUEL R. CORNEJO, petitioner, vs.ANDRES GABRIEL, provincial governor of Rizal, an !"e #RO$INCIAL BOARD O% RI&AL, co'po(e of ANDRES GABRIEL, #EDRO MAGSALIN an CA)ALINO S. CRU&, respondents.Gregorio Perfecto for petitioner.MALCOLM, J.:The petitioner in this case, the suspended municipal presidentof Pasay, Rial, see!s "y these proceedin#s inmandamus to have the provincial #overnor and the provincial "oard of the Province of Rial temporarily restrained from #oin# ahead $ithinvesti#ation of the char#es %led a#ainst him pendin# resolution of the case, and to have an order issue directed to the provincial #overnor commandin# him to return the petitioner to his position as municipal president of Pasay. The mem"ers of the provincial "oard have interposed a demurrer "ased on the #round that this court has no ri#ht to !eep them from complyin# $ith the provisions of the la$. The provincial #overnor has %led an ans$er to the petition, in $hich he alle#es as a special defense that numerous complaints have "een received "y him a#ainst the conduct of &i#uel R. 'orne(o, municipal president of Pasay) that these complaints $ere investi#ated "y him) that he came to the conclusion thata#reea"le to the po$ers conferred upon provincial #overnors, the municipal president should "e temporarily suspended, andthat an investi#ation is no$ "ein# conducted "y the provincial"oard.'ounsel for petitioner has ar#ued, $ith much elo*uence, that his client has "een deprived of an o+ce, to $hich he $as elected "y popular vote, $ithout havin# an opportunity to "e heard in his o$n defense. The respondents reply that all that the provincial #overnor and the provincial "oard have done in this case is to comply $ith the re*uirements of the la$ $hich they are s$orn to enforce. ,"viously, therefore, $e should %rst have "efore us the applica"le provisions of the Philippine la$ "earin# on the su"(ect of suspension of pu"lic o+cers.-nder the title of .Provincial supervision over municipal o+cers,. /rticle 01 of 'hapter 57 of the /dministrative 'ode, provides2The provincial #overnor shall receive and investi#ate complaints a#ainst municipal o+cers for ne#lect of duty, oppression, corruption, or other form of maladministration in o+ce. for minor delin*uency he may reprimand the o3ender) and if a more severe punishment seems to "e desira"le, he shall su"mit $ritten char#es touchin# the matter to the provincial "oard, and he may in such case suspend the o+cer 4not "ein# the municipal treasurer5 pendin# action "y the "oard, if in his opinion the char#e "e one a3ectin# the o+cial inte#rity of the o+cer in *uestion. 6here suspension is thus e3ected, the $ritten char#es a#ainst the o+cer shall "e %led $ith the "oard $ithin ten days.Trial of municipal ofcer by provincial board. 7 6hen $ritten char#es are preferred "y a provincial #overnor a#ainst a municipal o+cer, the provincial "oard shall, at its ne8t meetin#, re#ular or special, furnish a copy of said char#es to the accused o+cial, $ith a noti%cation of the time and place of hearin# thereon) and at the time and place appointed, the "oard shall proceed to hear and investi#ate the truth or falsityof said char#es, #ivin# the accused o+cial full opportunity to "e heard. The hearin# shall occur as soon as may "e practica"le, and in case suspension has "een e3ected, not later than %fteen days from the date the accused is furnished a copy of the char#es, unless the suspended o+cial shall, on su+cient #rounds, re*uest an e8tension of time to prepare hisdefense.Action by provincial board. 7 0f, upon due consideration, the provincial "oard shall ad(ud#e that the char#es are not sustained, the proceedin#s shall "e dismissed) if it shall ad(ud#e that the accused has "een #uilty of misconduct $hich$ould "e su+ciently punished "y reprimand, or further reprimand, it shall direct the provincial #overnor to deliver such reprimand in pursuance of its (ud#ment) and in either case the o+cial, if previously suspended, shall "e reinstated.0f in the opinion of the "oard the case is one re*uirin# more severe discipline, it shall $ithout unnecessary delay for$ard to the 'hief of the 98ecutive :ureau certi%ed copies of the record in the case, includin# the char#es, the evidence, and the %ndin#s of the "oard, to $hich shall "e added the recommendation of the "oard as to $hether the o+cial ou#ht to "e suspended, further suspended, or %nally dismissed from o+ce) and in such case the "oard may e8ercise its discretion to reinstate the o+cial, if already suspended, or to suspend him or continue his suspension pendin# %nal action.The trial of a suspended municipal o+cial and the proceedin#s incident thereto shall "e #iven preference over the current and routine "usiness of the "oard.Action by Chief of Executive Bureau. 7 -pon receivin# the papers in any such proceedin# the 'hief of the 98ecutive :ureau shall revie$ the case $ithout unnecessary delay and shall ma!e such order for the reinstatement, dismissal, suspension, or further suspension of the o+cial, as the facts shall $arrant. ;isciplinary suspension made upon order of the chief of the 98ecutive :ureau shall "e $ithout pay and in duration shall not e8ceed t$o months. overnor?>eneral.6ith the fore#oin# le#al provisions in mind, certain aspects of the case can "e disposed of $ithout di+culty. Thus it cannot "e seriously contended that the courts should interfere $ith an orderly investi#ation $hich is a"out to "e conducted "y theprovincial "oard. oodno$, #enerally considered the leadin# authority in the -nited Ctates on the su"(ect of /dministration @a$, in 1ol. 2J, 'yclopedia of @a$ and Procedure, and %nd the rules as to suspension of pu"lic o+cers laid do$n very concisely as follo$s2 .Po$er to suspend may "e e8ercised $ithout notice tothe person suspended.. 4P. 1F05.5 The citation "y Professor >oodno$ to support his conclusion is Ctate of Alorida, ex rel. /ttorney?>eneral vs.Dohnson 4E18J2G, H0 Ala., FHH) 18 @. R. /., F105. 0t $as here held "y the Cupreme 'ourt of Alorida that the #overnor could, under section 15 of the e8ecutive article of the 'onstitution, suspend an o+cer for ne#lect of duty in o+ce $ithout #ivin# previous notice to the o+cer of the char#e made a#ainst him./ later compilation of the pertinent authorities is to "e found in 22 Rulin# 'ase @a$, pp. 5IF, 5I5. ,n the su"(ect of suspension of pu"lic o+cers it is heared said2The suspension of an o+cer pendin# his trial for misconduct, so as to tie his hands for the time "ein#, seems to "e universally accepted as fair, and often necessary. . . . overnor $as su+cient) that the o+ce $assu"stantially an administrative one, althou#h the commission $as desi#ned "y a statute su"se*uent to that $hich created it, a court of record) that the o+cer ta!in# o+ce under the statute $as "ound to ta!e it on the terms provided for therein)that he $as la$fully suspended from o+ce) and that he $as not entitled to a trial "y (ury upon the hearin# of this case in the trial court. /s a result the court held that the defendant had not "een deprived of his property $ithout due process of la$, nor had he "een denied the e*ual protection of the la$s.8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 86e are of opinion the plainti3 in error $as not deprived of anyri#ht #uaranteed to him "y the Aederal 'onstitution, "y reasonof the proceedin#s "efore the >overnor under the statute a"ove mentioned, and resultin# in his suspension from o+ce.The procedure $as in accordance $ith the constitution and la$s of the Ctate. 0t $as ta!en under a valid statute creatin# astate o+ce in a constitutional manner, as the state court has held. 6hat !ind and ho$ much of a hearin# the o+cer should have "efore suspension "y the >overnor $as a matter for the state le#islature to determine, havin# re#ard to the constitution of the Ctate. 4There can also "e cited as supportin# authority Ctate ex rel. 6endlin# vs. :oard of Police and Aire 'ommissioners E1J15G, 15J 6is., 2J5) Cumpter vs. Ctate K1J0IG, 81 /r!., I0) >ray vs. &c@endon E1J01G, 1HF >a., 22F) Ctate vs. Police 'ommissioners, 1I &o. /pp., JF7) Preston vs. 'ity of 'hica#o E1J10G, 2FI 000., 2I) and People vs. ;raper E1J10G, 12F a"riel, ithout notice# ithout a hearing# and ithout an opportunity to present any proof hatsoever in his defense.The facts havin# "een admitted, $e have only a *uestion of la$ to decide, to $it2 0s the #overnor of a province authoried under the la$ to suspend a municipal president from his o+ce, to $hich he has "een legally elected for a period (xed by the la# ithout notice# ithout a hearing and ithout an opportunity to present proof in his defenseMCection H 4%rst para#raph5 of the Dones @a$ provides .that no la shall be enacted in said 0slands hich shall deprive anyperson of life# liberty or property ithout due process of la$, or deny to any person therein the e*ual protection of the la$..Cection 2188 of /ct rover, I :ush ENy.G, 1) 'ommon$ealth vs. >am"le, I2 Pa., HF2) Ctate vs. ;raper, 50 &o., H5H) Ctate vs.Thoman, 10 Nansas, 1J1) Ctate vs. &c&eely, 2F @a. /nn., 1J) 'ooley, 'onst. @im., Ith ed., p. 78) People vs.;raper, 15 overn, I Phil., I2156hen a preliminary e8amination, under the provisions of >eneral ,rders, rant and Nennedy, 18 Phil., 122.5The doctrine esta"lished "y this court in the cases a"ove mentioned, and in many others that need not "e cited, is applica"le also to the case $here an investi#ation is held, accordin# to said section 2188 of the /dministrative 'ode, "y the provincial #overnor "y virtue of a complaint presented a#ainst a municipal o+cer, "ecause $ithout an investi#ation held in le#al form, that is, "y hearin# the person accused of a crime in a (udicial complaint or the municipal o+cer accused in a complaint presented to the provincial #overnor, and #ivin# him the opportunity to defend himself, the information a#ainst the accused in the %rst case, can not "e %led in the 'ourt of Airst 0nstance and, in the second case, the complaint a#ainst the municipal o+cer, $hich may result in his dischar#e, can not "e presented to the provincial "oard) and as the ri#ht to "e present at the investi#ation, and "e heard "y himself or throu#h an attorney and present $itnesses in hisfavor, $hich are $hat constitute due process of la$, is an essential ri#ht of the accused in either case, then, if in the investi#ation "y the provincial #overnor of Rial, of the complaint received "y him a#ainst &i#uel 'orne(o, municipal president of Pasay, and referred to in his ans$er, said #overnor, $ithout previously notifyin# the accused municipal president of said char#es, held a preliminary investi#ation in his a"sence, $ithout hearin# him and $ithout #ivin# him an opportunity to defend himself, the complaint a#ainst said municipal o+cer %led "y said provincial #overnor or Rial $iththe provincial "oard is $ithout foundation and is ille#al for $ant of due proces of la$ in said investi#ation. Therefore, the administrative proceedin# instituted a#ainst said municipal o+cer "y virtue of that complaint is for that reason a3ected $ith a radical vice and it is evident that the provincial #overnor has not acted in accordance $ith the clear and conclusive provisions of the section of the /dministrative 'ode already cited and that he has acted in e8cess of his po$ers, not only in orderin# the suspension of the municipal president, petitioner herein, "ut also in presentin# to the provincial "oard, as a result of said investi#ation, the complaint a#ainst him. =ence the proceedin# instituted "eforesaid provincial "oard "y virtue of said complaint, is ille#al and void.Aor the reasons a"ove stated, in dissentin# from the respecta"le opinion of the ma(ority, 0 am of the opinion that the petition presented "y &i#uel 'orne(o, municipal president of Pasay, a#ainst /ndres >a"riel, provincial #overnor of Rial as $ell as a#ainst the provincial "oard of Rial, composed of /ndres >a"riel, Pedro &a#salin, and 'atalino C. 'ru, is $ell ta!en, and the respondents should "e, as they not are, ordered to pay the costs.Arancisco Dr vs =ouse of RepresentativesGR 16026110 November 2003Aacts2 ,n 28 . ;avide, Dr., founded on the alle#ed results of the le#islative in*uiry initiated "y a"ove?mentioned =ouse Resolution. The second impeachment complaint $as accompanied "y a .Resolution of 9ndorsement/0mpeachment. si#ned "y at least 1/H of all the &em"ers of the =ouse of Representatives. 1arious petitions for certiorari, prohi"ition, and mandamus $ere %led $ith the Cupreme 'ourt a#ainst the=ouse of Representatives, et. al., most of $hich petitions contend that the %lin# of the second impeachment complaint is unconstitutional as it violates the provision of Cection 5 of /rticle R0 of the 'onstitution that .EnGo impeachment proceedin#s shall "e initiated a#ainst the same o+cial more than once $ithin a period of one year..Issue: 6hether or not the petitions are plainly premature andhave no "asis in la$ or in fact, addin# that as of the time of %lin# of the petitions, no (usticia"le issue $as presented "efore it.Held: The courtSs po$er of (udicial revie$, li!e almost all po$ers conferred "y the 'onstitution, is su"(ect to several limitations, namely2 415 an actual case or controversy callin# for the e8ercise of (udicial po$er) 425 the person challen#in# the act must have Tstandin#U to challen#e) he must have a personal and su"stantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or $ill sustain, direct in(ury as a result of its enforcement) 4H5 the *uestion of constitutionality must "e raised at the earliest possi"le opportunity) and 4F5 the issue ofconstitutionality must "e the very lis mota of the case.This 'ourt did not heed the call to adopt a hands?o3 stance asfar as the *uestion of the constitutionality of initiatin# the impeachment complaint a#ainst 'hief Dustice ;avide is concerned.The 'ourt found the e8istence in full of all the re*uisite conditions for its e8ercise of its constitutionally vested po$er and duty of the (udicial revie$ over an issue $hose resolution precisely called for the construction or interpretation of a provision of the fundamental la$ of the land.6hat lies in here is an issue of a #enuine constitutional material $hich only this 'ourt can properly and competently address and ad(udicate in accordance $ith the clear?cut allocation of po$ers under our system of #overnment. This 'ourt in the present petitions su"(ected to (udicial scrutiny and resolved on the merits only the main issue of $hether the impeachment proceedin#s initiated a#ainst the 'hief Dustice trans#ressed the constitutionally imposed one?year time "ar rule.:eyond this, it did not #o a"out assumin# (urisdiction $here it had none, nor indiscriminately turn (usticia"le issues out of decidedly political *uestions.:ecauseit not at all the "usiness of this 'ourt to assert (udicial dominance over the other t$o #reat "ranches of the #overnment.Political *uestions are Tthose *uestions $hich, under the 'onstitution, are to "e decided "y the people in their soverei#n capacity, or in re#ard to $hich full discretionary authority has "een dele#ated to the @e#islature or e8ecutive "ranch of the >overnment.U0t is concerned $ith issues dependent upon the $isdom, not le#ality, of a particular measure.'itin# 'hief Dustice 'oncepcion, $hen he "ecame a 'onstitutional 'ommissioner2 TVThe po$ers of #overnment are #enerally considered divided into three "ranches2 the @e#islative, the 98ecutive, and the Dudiciary.9ach one is supreme $ithin its o$n sphere and independent of the others.:ecause of that supremacy po$er to determine $hether a #iven la$ is valid or not is vested in courts of (usticeV courts of (ustice determine the limits of po$ers of thea#encies and o+ces of the #overnment as $ell as those of its o+cers.The (udiciary is the %nal ar"iter on the *uestion $hether or not a "ranch of #overnment or any of its o+cials has acted $ithout (urisdiction or in e8cess of (urisdiction, or socapriciously as to constitute an a"use of discretion amountin# to e8cess of (urisdiction or lac! of (urisdiction.This is not only a (udicial po$er "ut also a duty to pass (ud#ment on matters of this natureVU a duty $hich cannot "e a"dicated "y the mere specter of the political la$ doctrine.The determination o a trul! "oliti#al $uestion rom a non%&usti#iable "oliti#al $uestion lies in the ans'er to the $uestion o 'hether there are #onstitutionall! im"osed limits on "o'ers or un#tions #onerred u"on "oliti#al bodies.I there are, then our #ourts are dut!%bound to e(amine 'hether the bran#h or instrumentalit! o the )overnment "ro"erl! a#ted 'ithin su#h limits. The 'ourt held that it has no (urisdiction over the issue that #oes into the merits of the second impeachment complaint.&ore importantly, any discussion of this $ould re*uire this 'ourt to ma!e a determination of $hat constitutes an impeacha"le o3ense.Cuch a determination is a purely political *uestion $hich the 'onstitution has left to the sound discretion of the le#islation.>-T09RR9W 1C =,-C9 ,A R9PR9C9aite and Dames Terry Ridon 4Reyes #roup5 %led an impeachment complaint a#ainsta herein petitioner endorsed "y Representatives 'olmenares, 'asiYo, &ariano, 0la#an, Tinio and ;e DesusX=,R provisionally adopted the Rules of Procedure on 0mpeachment Proceedin#s of the 1Fth 'on#ress and =,R Cec?>en transmitted the complaint to =ouse Cpea!er :elmonte $ho then, on /u#ust J, directed the 'ommittee on Rules to include it in the ,rder of :usinessX11/u#20102 =,R simultaneously referred the t$o complaints to the =ouse 'ommittee on Dustice 4=',D for "revity5X/fter hearin#, =',D "y Resolution of Ceptem"er 1, 2010, found"oth complaints su+cient in formX2Cept20102 The Rules of Procedure of 0mpeachment Proceedin#s of the 15th 'on#ress $as pu"lishedX/fter hearin#, =',D "y Resolution of Ceptem"er 7, 2010 found the t$o complaints, $hich "oth alle#e culpa"le violation of the 'onstitution and "etrayal of pu"lic trust, su+cient in su"stanceXPetitioner %led petitions for certiorari and prohi"ition challen#in# Resolutions of Ceptem"er 1 and 7 alle#in# that she $as denied due process and that these violated the one?year "ar rule on initiatin# impeachment proceedin#s0ssue/s2 1. 6hether the case presents a (usticia"le controversy2. 6hether the "elated pu"lication of the Rules of Procedure of 0mpeachment Proceedin#s of the 15th 'on#ress denied due process to the PetitionerH. 6hether the simultaneous referral of the t$o complaints violated the 'onstitutionRulin#2Petition ;0C&0CC9;.Ratio2 1. +. NO) A #OLI)ICAL ,UES)IONX Arancisco Dr. vs =,R2 Dudicial revie$ is not only a po$er "ut a duty of the (udiciaryX the 1J87 'onstitution, thou#h vestin# in the =ouse of Representatives the e8clusive po$er to initiate impeachment cases, provides for several limitations to the e8ercise of such po$er as em"odied in Cection H425, 4H5, 4F5 and 455, /rticle R0 thereof. These limitations include the manner of (ling# re*uired vote to impeach# and the one year bar on the impeachment of one and the same ofcial.?the 'onstitution did not intend to leave the matter of impeachment tothe sole discretion of 'on#ress. 0nstead, it provided for certain $ell?de%ned limits, or in the lan#ua#e of Ba+er v. Carr, T(udicially discovera"le standardsU for determinin# the validity of the e8ercise of such discretion, throu#h the po$er of (udicial revie$1. -. DUE #ROCESS. I( !"ere a nee !o p/0li(" a( a 'oe of pro'/lga!ion !"e R/le( of #roce/re of I'peac"'en! #roceeing(1 X4P5 alle#es that the %ndin# of su+ciency in form and su"stance of the impeachment complaints is tainted $ith "ias as the 'hairman of the =',DSs, Rep. Tupas, father has a pendin# case $ith her at the Candi#an"ayanXPresumption of re#ularityXThe determination of su+ciency of form and e8ponent of the e8press #rant of rule?ma!in# po$er in the =,RX!"e I'peac"'en! R/le( are clear in ec"oing !"e con(!i!/!ional re2/ire'en!( an proviing !"a! !"ere '/(! 0ea 3veri4e co'plain! or re(ol/!ion5, an !"a! !"e (/0(!ance re2/ire'en! i( 'e! if !"ere i( 3a reci!al of fac!( con(!i!/!ing !"e o6en(e c"arge an e!er'ina!ive of !"e 7/ri(ic!ion of !"e co''i!!ee5 XThe 'onstitution itself did not provide for a speci%c method of promul#atin# the Rules.Ximpeachment is primarily for the protection of the people as a "ody politic, and not for the punishment of the o3ender8. )*E ONE9:EAR BAR RULEX4P52 start of the one?year "ar from the %lin# of the %rst impeachment complaint a#ainst her on Duly 22, 2010 or four days "efore the openin# on Duly 2I, 2010 of the 15th 'on#ress. Che posits that $ithin one year from Duly 22, 2010, no second impeachment complaint may "e accepted and referred to pu"lic respondent.XINI)IA)I$E. Ailin# of impeachment complaint coupled $ith 'on#ressS ta!in# initial action of said complaint 4referral of the complaint to the 'ommittee on Dustice5XIM#EAC*. to %le the case "efore the CenateXRationale of the one?year "ar2 Tthat the purpose of the one?year "ar is t$o?fold2 15Uto prevent undue or too fre*uent harassment) and 25 to allo$ the le#islature to do its principal tas! EofG le#islation,U TVthat there should only "e ,>, throu#h its then'hairman Dovito R. Calon#a, created an /AP /nti?>raft :oard 4./AP :oard.5 tas!ed to investi#ate reports of une8plained $ealth and corrupt practices "y /AP personnel, $hether in theactive service or retired.2:ased on its mandate, the /AP :oard investi#ated various reports of alle#ed une8plained $ealth of respondent &a(or >eneral Dosephus Q. Ramas 4.Ramas.5. ,n 27 Duly 1J87, the /AP :oard issued a Resolution on its %ndin#s and recommendation on the reported une8plained $ealth of Ramas. The relevant part of the Resolution reads2000. A0>, as plainti3 and Ramas as defendant. The /mended 'omplaint also impleaded 9lia"eth ;imaano 4.;imaano.5 as co?defendant.The /mended 'omplaint alle#ed that Ramas $as the 'ommandin# >eneral of the Philippine /rmy until 1J8I. ,n the other hand, ;imaano $as a con%dential a#ent of the &ilitary Cecurity -nit, Philippine /rmy, assi#ned as a cler!?typist at the o+ce of Ramas from 1 Danuary 1J78 to Ae"ruary 1J7J. The /mended 'omplaint further alle#ed that Ramas .ac*uired funds, assets and properties manifestly out of proportion to his salary as an army o+cer and his other income from le#itimately ac*uired property "y ta!in# undue advanta#e of his pu"lic o+ce and/or usin# his po$er, authority and in[uence as such o+cer of the /rmed Aorces of the Philippines and as a su"ordinate and close associate of the deposed President Aerdinand &arcos..5The /mended 'omplaint also alle#ed that the /AP :oard, aftera previous in*uiry, found reasona"le #round to "elieve that respondents have violated R/ > could e8ercise its (urisdiction over him. Petitioner ar#ues that Ramas $as undou"tedly a su"ordinate of former President &arcos "ecause of his position as the 'ommandin# >eneral of the Philippine /rmy. Petitioner claims that RamasS position ena"led him to receive orders directly from his commander?in?chief, undenia"ly ma!in# him a su"ordinate of former President &arcos.6e hold that Ramas $as not a .su"ordinate. of former President &arcos in the sense contemplated under 9, > failed to do.PetitionerSs attempt to di3erentiate the instant case from &i#rino does not convince us. Petitioner ar#ues that unli!e in &i#rino, the /AP :oard Resolution in the instant case states that the /AP :oard conducted the investi#ation pursuant to 9, > still pursued this case despite the a"sence of a prima facie %ndin#that Ramas $as a .su"ordinate. of former President &arcos. The petition for forfeiture %led $ith the Candi#an"ayan should"e dismissed for lac! of authority "y the P'>> to investi#ate respondents since there is no prima facie sho$in# that 9, > should have recommended RamasS case to the ,m"udsman $ho has (urisdiction to conduct the preliminary investi#ation of ordinary une8plained $ealth and #raft cases. /s stated in &i#rino2E:utG in vie$ of the patent lac! of authority of the P'>> to investi#ate and cause the prosecution of private respondent for violation of Rep. /cts > cannot e8ercise investi#ative or prosecutorial po$ers never #ranted to it. P'>>Ss po$ers are speci%c and limited. -nless #iven additional assi#nment "y the President, P'>>Ss sole tas! is only to recover the ill?#otten $ealth of the &arcoses, their relatives and cronies.2J 6ithout these elements, the P'>> cannot claim (urisdiction over a case.Private respondents *uestioned the authority and (urisdiction of the P'>> to investi#ate and prosecute their cases "y %lin# their &otion to ;ismiss as soon as they learned of the pronouncement of the 'ourt in &i#rino. This case $as decidedon H0 /u#ust 1JJ0, $hich e8plains $hy private respondents only %led their &otion to ;ismiss on 8 ,cto"er 1JJ0. > to conduct the preliminary investi#ation. The ,m"udsman may still conduct the proper preliminary investi#ation for violation of R/ eneral may %le the forfeiture petition$ith the Candi#an"ayan.H2 The ri#ht of the Ctate to forfeit une8plained $ealth under R/ > supposedly conducted. /#ain, the Candi#an"ayan #ave petitioner until 18 &ay 1JJ0 to continue $ith the presentation of its evidence and to informthe court of .$hat lies ahead insofar as the status of the case is concerned 8 8 8..H7 Ctill on the date set, petitioner failed to present its evidence. Ainally, on 11 Duly 1JJ0, petitioner %led its Re?/mended 'omplaint.H8 The Candi#an"ayan correctly o"served that a case already pendin# for years $ould revert to its preliminary sta#e if the court $ere to accept the Re?/mended 'omplaint.:ased on these circumstances, o"viously petitioner has only itself to "lame for failure to complete the presentation of its evidence. The Candi#an"ayan #ave petitioner more than su+cient time to %nish the presentation of its evidence. The Candi#an"ayan overloo!ed petitionerSs delays and yet petitioner ended the lon#?strin# of delays $ith the %lin# of a Re?/mended 'omplaint, $hich $ould only prolon# even more the disposition of the case.&oreover, the pronouncements of the 'ourt in &i#rino and 'ru prompted the Candi#an"ayan to dismiss the case since the P'>> has no (urisdiction to investi#ate and prosecute the case a#ainst private respondents. This alone $ould have "eensu+cient le#al "asis for the Candi#an"ayan to dismiss the forfeiture case a#ainst private respondents.Thus, $e hold that the Candi#an"ayan did not err in dismissin# the case "efore completion of the presentation of petitionerSs evidence.Third -ssue. 2egality of the %earch and %ei3urePetitioner claims that the Candi#an"ayan erred in declarin# the properties con%scated from ;imaanoSs house as ille#ally seied and therefore inadmissi"le in evidence. This issue "ears a si#ni%cant e3ect on petitionerSs case since these properties comprise most of petitionerSs evidence a#ainst private respondents. Petitioner $ill not have much evidence tosupport its case a#ainst private respondents if these properties are inadmissi"le in evidence.,n H &arch 1J8I, the 'onsta"ulary raidin# team served at ;imaanoSs residence a search $arrant captioned .0lle#al Possession of Airearms and /mmunition.. ;imaano $as not present durin# the raid "ut ;imaanoSs cousins $itnessed the raid. The raidin# team seied the items detailed in the seiure receipt to#ether $ith other items not included in the search $arrant. The raidin# team seied these items2 one "a"y armalite ri[e $ith t$o ma#aines) F0 rounds of 5.5I ammunition) one pistol, cali"er .F5) communications e*uipment, cash consistin# of P2,870,000 and -CZ50,000, (e$elry, and land titles.Petitioner $ants the 'ourt to ta!e (udicial notice that the raidin# team conducted the search and seiure .on &arch H, 1J8I or %ve days after the successful 9;C/ revolution..HJ Petitioner ar#ues that a revolutionary #overnment $as operative at that time "y virtue of Proclamation overnment $hich $as met "y little resistance and her control of the state evidenced "y the appointment of the 'a"inet and other !ey o+cers of the administration, the departure of the &arcos 'a"inet o+cials, revamp of the Dudiciary and the &ilitary si#naled the point 'here the le)al s!stem then in e6e#t, had #eased to be obe!ed b! the 7ili"ino. 49mphasis supplied5To hold that the :ill of Ri#hts under the 1J7H 'onstitution remained operative durin# the interre#num $ould render voidall se*uestration orders issued "y the Philippine 'ommission on >ood >overnment 4.P'>>.5 "efore the adoption of the Areedom 'onstitution. The se*uestration orders, $hich direct the freein# and even the ta!e?over of private property "y mere e8ecutive issuance $ithout (udicial action, $ould violate the due process and search and seiure clauses of the :ill of Ri#hts.;urin# the interre#num, the #overnment in po$er $as concededly a revolutionary #overnment "ound "y no constitution. > an auctioneer, placin# the :ill of Ri#hts on the auction "loc!. 0f the price is ri#ht, the search and seiure clause $ill "e sold. .,pen your C$iss "an! account to us and $e $ill a$ard you the search and seiure clause. Lou can !eepit in your private safe../lternatively, the ar#ument loo!s on the present #overnment as hosta#e to the hoarders of hidden $ealth. The hoarders $illrelease the hidden health if the ransom price is paid and the ransom price is the :ill of Ri#hts, speci%cally the due process in the search and seiure clauses. Co, there is somethin# positively revolvin# a"out either ar#ument. The :ill of Ri#hts is not for sale to the hi#hest "idder nor can it "e used to ransom captive dollars. This nation $ill survive and #ro$ stron#, only if it $ould "ecome convinced of the values enshrined in the 'onstitution of a price that is "eyond monetary estimation.Aor these reasons, the honora"le course for the 'onstitutional 'ommission is to delete all of Cection 8 of the committee report and allo$ the ne$ 'onstitution to ta!e e3ect in full vi#or. 0f Cection 8 is deleted, the P'>> has t$o options. Airst, it can pursue the Calon#a and the Romulo ar#ument 7 that $hat the P'>> has "een doin# has "een completely $ithin the pale of the la$. 0f sustained, the P'>> can #o on and should "e a"le to #o on, even $ithout the support of Cection 8. 0f not sustained, ho$ever, the P'>> has only one honora"leoption, it must "o$ to the ma(esty of the :ill of Ri#hts.The P'>> e8trapolation of the la$ is defended "y staunch 'hristians. @et me conclude $ith $hat another 'hristian replied $hen as!ed to toy around $ith the la$. Arom his prisoncell, Thomas &ore said, .0Bll #ive the devil "ene%t of la$ for my nationSs safety sa!e.. 0 as! the 'ommission to #ive the devil "ene%t of la$ for our nationSs sa!e. /nd $e should delete Cection 8.Than! you, &adam President. 49mphasis supplied5;espite the impassioned plea "y 'ommissioner :ernas a#ainst the amendment e8ceptin# se*uestration orders from the :ill of Ri#hts, the 'onstitutional 'ommission still adopted the amendment as Cection 2I,FF /rticle R1000 of the 1J87 'onstitution. The framers of the 'onstitution $ere fully a$are that a"sent Cection 2I, se*uestration orders $ould not stand the test of due process under the :ill of Ri#hts.Thus, to rule that the :ill of Ri#hts of the 1J7H 'onstitution remained in force durin# the interre#num, a"sent a constitutional provision e8ceptin# se*uestration orders from such :ill of Ri#hts, $ould clearly render all se*uestration orders void durin# the interre#num.