Bitonio Jr. vs. COA G. R. No.

147392 March 12, 2004

Facts: In 1994, petitioner Bitonio, Jr. was appointed Director IV of the Bureau of Labor Relations in the Department of Labor and Employment. As representative of the Secretary of Labor to the PEZA Board, he was receiving a per diem for every board meeting he attended during the years 1995 to 1997. After a post audit of the PEZAs disbursement transactions, the COA disallowed the payment of per diems to Bitonio pursuant to the Supreme Court ruling declaring unconstitutional the holding of other offices by the cabinet members, their deputies and assistants in addition to their primary office and the receipt of compensation therefore, and, to COA Memorandum No. 97-038 dated September 19, 1997, implementing Senate Committee Reports No. 509. In his motion for reconsideration to the COA, he contended that the Supreme Court modified its earlier ruling in the Civil Liberties Union case which limits the prohibition to Cabinet Secretaries, Undersecretaries and their Assistants. Officials given the rank equivalent to a Secretary, Undersecretary or Assistant Secretary and other appointive officials below the rank of Assistant Secretary are not covered by the prohibition. Issue: Whether COA correctly disallowed the per diems received by the petitioner for his attendance in the PEZA Board of Directors meetings as representative of the Secretary of Labor. Ruling: Yes, the petitioner is, indeed, not entitled to receive per diem for his board meetings sitting as representative of the Secretary of Labor in the Board of Directors of the PEZA. The petitioners presence in the PEZA Board meetings is solely by virtue of his capacity as representative of the Secretary of Labor. Since the Secretary of Labor is prohibited from receiving compensation for his additional office or employment, such prohibition likewise applies to the petitioner who sat in the Board only in behalf of the Secretary of Labor. The Supreme Court cannot allow the petitioner who sat as representative of the Secretary of Labor in the PEZA Board to have a better right as his principal.

LIM vs. HON. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY G.R. No. 151445 Facts: On Feb. 2002, Lim filed petition for certiorari and prohibition, praying that respondents (US troops) be restrained from proceeding with the so-called Balikatan 02-1, and that after due notice and hearing, judgment be rendered issuing a permanent writ of injuction and/or prohibition against the deployment of US troops in Basilan and Mindanao for being illegal and in violation of the Constitution. Petitioners contend that the RP and the US signed the Mutual Defense Treaty to provide mutual military assistance in accordance with the constitutional processes of each country only in the case of a armed attack by an external aggressor, meaning a third country, against one of them. They further argued that it cannot be said that the Abu Sayyaf in Basilan constitutes an external aggressor to warrant US military assistance in accordance with MDT of 1951. Another contention was that the VFA of 1999 does not authorize American soldiers to engage in combat operations in Philippine territory. Moreover, petitioners alleged that Balikatan-02-1 is not covered by the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) between the Philippines and the United States. Petitioners posited that the MDT only provides for mutual military assistance in case of armed attack by an external aggressor against the Philippines or the US. Petitioners also claim that the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) does not authorize American Soldiers to engage in combat operations in Philippine Territory. Issue: Whether or not the Balikatan 02-1 activities are covered by the VFA. Ruling : Yes, the MDT is the core of the defense relationship between the Philippines and the US and it is the VFA which gives continued relevance to it. Moreover, it is the VFA that gave legitimacy to the current Balikatan exercise, being a mutual anti-terrorism advising assisting and training exercise which falls under the umbrella of sanctioned or allowable activities in the context of the agreement. The constitution leaves us no doubt that US Forces are prohibited from engaging war on Philippine territory. This limitation is explicitly provided for in the Terms of Reference of the Balikatan exercise.

Bito-Onon vs. Hon. Fernandez GR No. 139813 Facts: Bito-Onon is the duly elected Barangay Chairman of Tacras, Narra Palawan and is the Municipal Liga Chapter President for the Municipality of Narra, Palawan. Respondent Quejano Jr., on the other hand, is the duly elected Barangay Chairman of Rizal, Magsaysay, Palawan and is the Municipal Liga Chapter President of Magsaysay, Palawan. Both Bito-Onon and Quejano were candidates for the position of Executive Vice- President in the August 23, 1997 election for the Liga ng Brgy Provincial Chapter in the province of Palawan. Bito-Onon was the proclaimed winner prompting Quejano to file a a post proclamation protest with the Board of Election Supervisors (BES), which was decided against him. Not satisfied with the decision of BES Quejano filed a petition for review of the decision of BES. On 1999, Onon filed a petition to dismiss the review raising the issue of jurisdiction. The latter claimed that RTC has no jurisdiction to review the BES decision in any post proclamation electoral protest in connection with the 1997 Liga ng mga Brgy Election of Officers and Directors . In his motion to dismiss, Bito-Onon claimed that the Supplemental Guidelines for the 1997 guidelines for the Liga ng Brgy Election issued by the DILG in its Memorandum Circular No. 97-193, providing for review of decisions or resolutions of the BES by the regular courts of law is an Ultra Vires act and is void for being issued without or in excess of jurisdiction, as its issuance is not a mere act of supervision but rather an exercise of control over the Ligas Internal Org. Issue: 1. Whether or not the Presidents supervision extend to the Liga ng Baragay which is not an LGU. 2. Whether or not the guidelines/provision in the Memorandum issued by the DILG within its supervisory limit. Ruling: 1. Yes, DOJ ruled that the Liga ng Brgy is a government org., being an association federation/league/union by law or authority of law whose members are either appointed or elected govt officials. The ligas are primarily governed by LGC. However, their respective constitution and by-laws shall govern all matters affecting the internal org of the liga not otherwise provided for in the LGC, provided that such consti and by laws shall be supplementary to Book II Title VI OF LGCode and shall conform to Consti and existing laws. 2. No, In authorizing the filing of petition for review of BES decision with regular courts under MC No. 97-193, the DILG Secretary in effect amended and modified the guidelines promulgated by the Liga which provides that review of BES decision is with Natl Liga Board. The amendment of the guidelines is more than the exercise of supervision but is an exercise of the power of control which the President doesnt have over the Liga