1. vargas v rilloraza l-1612 GAB FACTS: Petitioner assails the validity of Sec. 14 of the The People s !

o"rt Act# !o$$on%ealth Act 6&2# %hich provided that the President co"ld designate '"dges of (irst )nstance# '"dges-atlarge of (irst )nstance or !adastral '"dges to sit as s"*stit"te '"stices of the S"pre$e !o"rt in treason cases %itho"t the$ necessarily having to possess the re+"ired constit"tional +"alifications of a reg"lar S"pre$e !o"rt '"stice. ISSUE: ,hether or not Sec. 14 of !A 6&2 is constit"tional RULING: -o. Sec. 14 of !A .&2 is "nconstit"tional. Article /)))# sections 4 and .# of the !onstit"tion do not ad$it any co$position of the S"pre$e !o"rt other than the !hief '"stice and Associate '"stices therein $entioned appointed as therein provided. And the infringe$ent is enhanced and aggravated %here a $a0ority of the $e$*ers of the !o"rt 1 as in this case 1 are replaced *y 0"dges of first instance. )t is distinctly another S"pre$e !o"rt in addition to this. And the constit"tion provides for only one S"pre$e !o"rt. Gro"nds for dis+"alification added *y section 14 of !o$$on%ealth Act -o. 6&2 to those already e2isting at the ti$e of the adoption of the !onstit"tion and contin"ed *y it is not only ar*itrary and irrational *"t positively violative of the organic la%. 2. flores v drilon 134452 !6!67889 Topic: Salary and Prerequisites FACTS Petitioners# ta2payers and e$ployees of :.S facilities at S"*ic# challenge the constit"tionality of Sec. 15 ;d< of the Bases !onversion and =evelop$ent Act of 1>>2

%hich directs the President to appoint a professional $anager as ad$inistrator of the SB?A...provided that for the 1st year of its operations, the mayor of Olongapo City (Richard Gordon) shall be appointed as the chairman and the CEO of the S bic ! thority"# ISSUES ;1< ,@- the proviso violates the constit"tional proscription against appoint$ent or designation of elective officials to other govern$ent posts. ;2< ,@- the SB?A posts are $erely e2 officio to the position of ?ayor of Alongapo !ity and th"s an e2cepted circ"$stance. ;5< B,@- the !onstit"tional provision allo%ing an elective official to receive do"*le co$pensation ;Sec. &# Art. )C-B< %o"ld *e "seless if no elective official $ay *e appointed to another post. ;4< ,@- there is legislative encroach$ent on the appointing a"thority of the President. ;.< B,@- ?ayor Gordon $ay retain any and all per die$s# allo%ances and other e$ol"$ents %hich he $ay have received p"rs"ant to his appoint$ent. $Relevant to the Chapter on Salaries HEL ;1< !ES# Sec. 4 of Art. )C-B of the !onstit"tion ProvidesD %o elective official shall *e eligi*le for appoint$ent or designation in any capacity to any p"*lic office or positiond"ring his ten"re. :nless other%ise allo%ed *y la% or *y the pri$ary f"nctions of his position# no appointive official shall hold any other office or e$ploy$ent in the Govern$ent or any s"*division# agency or instr"$entality thereof# incl"ding govern$ent-o%ned or controlled corporations or their s"*sidiaries. The s"*0ect proviso directs the President to appoint an elective official i.e. the ?ayor of Alongapo !ity# to othergovern$ent post ;as

!hair$an and !7A of SB?A<. This is precisely %hat the !onstit"tion prohi*its. )t seeEs to prevent a sit"ation %here a local elective official %ill %orE for his appoint$ent in an e2ec"tive position in govern$ent# and th"s neglect his constit"ents. ;2< N"# !ongress did not conte$plate $aEing the SB?A posts as a"to$atically attached to the Affice of the ?ayor %itho"t need of appoint$ent. The phrase Fshall *e appointedF "n+"estiona*ly sho%s the intent to $aEe the SB?A posts appointive and not $erely ad0"nct to the post of ?ayor of Alongapo !ity. ;5< N"# Sec. & does not affect the constit"tionality of the s"*0ect proviso. )n any case# the /ice-President for e2a$ple# an elective official %ho $ay *e appointed to a ca*inet post# $ay receive the co$pensation attached to the ca*inet position if specifically a"thorized *y la%. ;4< !ES# altho"gh Section 15;d< itself vests in the President the po%er to appoint the !hair$an of SB?A# he really has no choice *"t to appoint the ?ayor of Alongapo !ity. The po%er of choice is the heart of the po%er to appoint. Appoint$ent involves an e2ercise of discretion of %ho$ to appoint. 6ence# %hen !ongress clothes the President %ith the po%er to appoint an officer# it cannot at the sa$e ti$e li$it the choice of the President to only one candidate. S"ch enact$ent effectively eli$inates the discretion of the appointing po%er to choose and constit"tes an irreg"lar restriction on the po%er of appoint$ent. ,hile it $ay *e vie%ed that the proviso $erely sets the +"alifications of the officer d"ring the first year of operations of SB?A# i"e"# he $"st *e the ?ayor of Alongapo !ity# it is $anifestly an a*"se of congressional a"thority to prescri*e +"alifications %here only one# and no other# can +"alify. Since the ineligi*ility of an elective official for appoint$ent re$ains all thro"gho"t

his ten"re or d"ring his inc"$*ency# he $ay ho%ever resign first fro$ his elective post to cast off the constit"tionally-attached dis+"alification *efore he $ay *e considered fit for appoint$ent. !onse+"ently# as long as he is an inc"$*ent# an elective official re$ains ineligi*le for appoint$ent to another p"*lic office. ;.< !ES# as inc"$*ent elective official# Gordon is ineligi*le for appoint$ent to the position of !hair$an and !7A of SB?AG hence# his appoint$ent thereto cannot *e s"stained. 6e ho%ever re$ains ?ayor of Alongapo !ity# and his acts as SB?A official are not necessarily n"ll and voidG he $ay *e considered a de facto officer# and in accordance %ith 0"rispr"dence# is entitled to s"ch *enefits 5. $analang v chitoriano l-6&>& P69 FACTS:H"is ?analang %as the =irector of the Place$ent B"rea". 6o%ever in 1>.2# a la% %as passed *y !ongress a*olishing the Place$ent B"rea" ;PB<. The said *"rea" %as replaced *y the -ational 7$ploy$ent Service ;-7S<. A"relio I"itoriano# then acting Secretary of Ha*or# reco$$ended ?analang to *e the !o$$issioner of -7S. B"t then it %as I"itoriano %ho %as appointed *y the President as the !o$$issioner of -7S. ?analang then filed a +"o %arranto case against I"itoriano and the t%o others %ho s"cceeded I"itoriano in the said post. ?analang contended that the la% creating the -7S provided for the a"to$atic a*sorption of +"alified personnel fro$ the PB to the -7SG that as =irector of PB# he sho"ld a"to$atically *e the !o$$issioner of -7SG that he if he %onJt *e appointed as s"ch# he is in effect *eing o"sted fro$ his position and s"ch violates his sec"rity of ten"re. ISSUE: ,hether or not ?analang is correct$ HEL : -o. The Place$ent B"rea" %as d"ly a*olished *y a valid la%. !onse+"ently#

?analangJs for$er office as =irector of PB is liEe%ise a*olished. There ) no ter$ination to speaE of and his right to sec"rity of ten"re is not violated. 6e %as not re$oved fro$ office. 6is office si$ply ceased to e2ist. 7ven tho"gh it appears that the -7S and the PB has si$ilar f"nctions# ?analangJs arg"$ent that *ased on the la% creating -7S# he sho"ld *e a"to$atically a*sor*ed as !o$$issioner therein is not tena*le. The a*sorption of +"alified personnel provided for in the la% ;8A 461D An Act to Provide for the Arganization of a -ational 7$ploy$ent Service< does not incl"de the =irector of PB *eca"se if that it does the intention of !ongress# then !ongress is "s"rping the po%er of the president to appoint. !ongress cannot appoint a specific person into a p"*lic office. The appointing po%er is the e2cl"sive prerogative of the President# "pon %hich no li$itations $ay *e i$posed *y !ongress# e2cept those res"lting fro$ the need of sec"ring the conc"rrence of the !o$$ission on Appoint$ents and fro$ the e2ercise of the li$ited legislative po%er to prescri*e the +"alifications to a given appointive office. 4. c"yegEeng v cr"z 16256 .. cayetano v $onsod 133115 FACTS: ?onsod %as no$inated *y President A+"ino as !hair$an of the !o$elec. The !o$$ission on Appoint$ents confir$ed the appoint$ent despite !ayetano s o*0ection# *ased on ?onsod s alleged lacE of the re+"ired +"alification of 13 year la% practice. !ayetano filed this certiorari and prohi*ition. ISSUE: 1. ,hether or not ?onsod has *een engaged in the practice of la% for 13 years 2. %&et&er or not t&e Co''ission on Appoint'ents co''itted (ra)e a*use o+ discretion in con+ir'in( ,onsod-s

appoint'ent RULING: .$ !ES$ The practice of la% is not li$ited to the cond"ct of cases or litigation in co"rt. )t e$*races the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings# the $anage$ent of s"ch actions and proceedings on *ehalf of clients# and other %orEs %here the %orE done involves the deter$ination of the trained legal $ind of the legal effect of facts and conditions ;PHA vs. Agrava.< The records of the 1>&6 constit"tional co$$ission sho% that the interpretation of the ter$ practice of la% %as li*eral as to consider la%yers e$ployed in the !o$$ission of A"dit as engaged in the practice of la% provided that they "se their legal Eno%ledge or talent in their respective %orE. The co"rt also cited an article in the 'an"ary 11# 1>&> iss"e of the B"siness Star# that la%yers no%adays have their o%n specialized fields s"ch as ta2 la%yers# prosec"tors# etc.# that *eca"se of the de$ands of their specialization# la%yers engage in other %orEs or f"nctions to $eet the$. These days# for e2a$ple# $ost corporation la%yers are involved in $anage$ent policy for$"lation. Therefore# ?onsod# %ho passed the *ar in 1>63# %orEed %ith the ,orld BanE Gro"p fro$ 1>65-1>43# then %orEed for an invest$ent *anE till 1>&6# *eca$e $e$*er of the !A-!A? in 1>&6# and also *eca$e a $e$*er of the =avide !o$$ission in 1>>3# can *e considered to have *een engaged in the practice of la% as la%yer-econo$ist# la%yer-$anager# la%yer-entreprene"r# etc. /$ N"$ The po%er of the !AA to give consent to the no$ination of the !o$elec !hair$an *y the president is $andated *y the constit"tion. The po%er of appoint$ent is essentially %ithin

the discretion of %ho$ it is so vested s"*0ect to the only condition that the appointee sho"ld possess the +"alification re+"ired *y la%. (ro$ the evidence# there is no occasion for the S! to e2ercise its corrective po%er since there is no s"ch grave a*"se of discretion on the part of the !A. Adapted 6. a+"ino v co$elec 12326. Facts:An 23 ?arch 1>>.# Agapito A. A+"ino filed his !ertificate of !andidacy for the position of 8epresentative for the ne% Second Hegislative =istrict of ?aEati !ity. )n his certificate of candidacy# A+"ino stated that he %as a resident of the afore$entioned district for 13 $onths. (aced %ith a petition for dis+"alification# he a$ended the entry on his residency in his certificate of candidacy to 1 year and 15 days. The !o$$ission on 7lections dis$issed the petition on 6 ?ay and allo%ed A+"ino to r"n in the election of & ?ay. A+"ino %on. Acting on a $otion for reconsideration of the a*ove dis$issal# the !o$$ission on 7lection later iss"ed an order s"spending the procla$ation of A+"ino "ntil the !o$$ission resolved the iss"e. An 2 '"ne# the !o$$ission on 7lections fo"nd A+"ino ineligi*le and dis+"alified for the elective office for lacE of constit"tional +"alification of residence. Issue:,hether KresidencyL in the certificate of candidacy act"ally connotes Kdo$icileL to %arrant the dis+"alification of A+"ino fro$ the position in the electoral district Held:The place K%here a party act"ally or constr"ctively has his per$anent ho$e#L %here he# no $atter %here he $ay *e fo"nd at any given ti$e# event"ally intends to ret"rn and re$ain# i.e.# his do$icile# is that to %hich

the !onstit"tion refers %hen it speaEs of residence for the p"rposes of election la%. The p"rpose is to e2cl"de strangers or ne%co$ers "nfa$iliar %ith the conditions and needs of the co$$"nity fro$ taEing advantage of favora*le circ"$stances e2isting in that co$$"nity for electoral gain. A+"inoJs certificate of candidacy in a previo"s ;1>>2< election indicates that he %as a resident and a registered voter of San 'ose# !oncepcion# Tarlac for $ore than .2 years prior to that election. A+"inoJs connection to the Second =istrict of ?aEati !ity is an alleged lease agree$ent of a condo$ini"$ "nit in the area. The intention not to esta*lish a per$anent ho$e in ?aEati !ity is evident in his leasing a condo$ini"$ "nit instead of *"ying one. The short length of ti$e he clai$s to *e a resident of ?aEati ;and the fact of his stated do$icile in Tarlac and his clai$s of other residences in ?etro ?anila< indicate that his sole p"rpose in transferring his physical residence is not to ac+"ire a ne%# residence or do$icile *"t only to +"alify as a candidate for 8epresentative of the Second =istrict of ?aEati !ity. A+"ino %as th"s rightf"lly dis+"alified *y the !o$$ission on 7lections. 4. $arcos v co$elec 11>>46 Facts: ?arch &# 1>>. M ?arcos filed her !ertificate of !andidacy for the position of 8epresentative of the (irst =istrict of Heyte %ith the Provincial 7lection S"pervisor. ?arch 25# 1>>. M ?onte0o# inc"$*ent of and candidate for the sa$e position# filed a petition for cancellation and dis+"alification %ith the !A?7H7!# alleging that ?arcos did not $eet the residency re+"ire$ent. ?arch 2># 1>>. M ?arcos filed an

A$ended@!orrected !ertificate of !andidacy in the !A?7H7!Ns head office in )ntra$"ros clai$ing that her error in the first certificate %as the res"lt of an Ohonest $isrepresentation and that she has al%ays O$aintained Taclo*an !ity as her do$icile or residence. April 24# 1>>. M !A?7H7! Second =ivision *y a vote of 2-1 ca$e "p %ith a 8esol"tion that fo"nd ?onte0oNs petition for dis+"alification $eritorio"s# ?arcosN corrected certificate of candidacy void# and her original certificate cancelled. ?ay 4# 1>>. M !A?7H7! en *anc denied ?arcosN ?otion for 8econsideration of the 8esol"tion drafted on April 24. ?ay 11# 1>>. M !A?7H7! iss"ed another 8esol"tion allo%ing ?arcosN procla$ation to the office sho"ld the res"lts of the canvass sho% that she o*tained the highest n"$*er of votes. 6o%ever# this %as reversed and instead directed that the procla$ation %o"ld *e s"spended even if she did %in. ?ay 2.# 1>>. M )n a s"pple$ental petitition# ?arcos declared that she %as the %inner of the said !ongressional election. Issues0 Held0Ratio: 1.2 ,A- plaintiff had esta*lished legal residency re+"ired to *e a voter# and th"s candidate# of the first district of Heyte. 9es. )t is the fact if residence# not a state$ent in a certificate of candidacy %hich o"t to *e decisive in deter$ining %hether or not an individ"al has satisfied the constit"tionNs residency +"alification re+"ire$ent ;as intended *y the fra$erNs of the constit"tion<2.

The conf"sion of the Ohonest $istaEe $ade %hen filed her !ertificate of !andidacy can *e attri*"ted to the fact that the entry for residence is i$$ediately follo%ed *y the entry for the n"$*er of years and $onths in the residence %here the candidate seeEs to hold office i$$ediately after the elections. This honest $istaEe sho"ld not *e allo%ed to negate the fact of residence in the (irst =istrict. The instances ;i.e. %hen ?arcos lived in ?anila and )locos after $arrying her h"s*and< "sed *y the !A?7H7! to dis+"alify ?arcos %ere only act"al residences inc"rred d"ring their $arriageG and as s"ch# she %as re+"ired to change residences and apply for voterNs registration in these cited locations. ,hen she got $arried to the late dictator# it cannot *e arg"ed that she lost her do$icile of origin *y operation of la% stated in Article 113 of the !!5 and f"rther conte$plated in Article 13>4 of the sa$e code. )t is the h"s*andNs right to transfer residences to %herever he $ight see fit to raise a fa$ily. Th"s# the relocation does not $ean or intend to lose the %ifeNs do$icile of origin. After the death of her h"s*and# her choice of do$icle %as Taclo*an# Heyte as e2pressed %hen she %rote the P!GG chair$an seeEing per$ission to reha*ilitate their ancestral ho"se in Taclo*an and their far$ in Alot# Heyte. 1/2 ,A- !A?7H7! the proper 0"risdiction in dis+"alifying the plaintiff "nder Article 4& of the A$ni*"s 7lection !ode had already lapsed# there*y trans$itting 0"risdiction to the 6o"se of 8epresentatives. 9es. The $ischief in petitionerNs contention lies in the fact that o"r co"rts and other +"asi0"dicial *odies %o"ld then ref"se to render 0"dg$ents $erely on the gro"nd of having failed to reach a decision %ithin a given or

prescri*ed period. )n any event# Sections 6 2 As disc"ssed d"ring the deli*erations of the 1>&4 !onstit"tion *y ?r. -olledo and ?r. =avide# and ?rs. 8osario and ?r. =e Hos 8eyes in the 87!A8= A( T67 1>&4 !A-ST)T:T)A-AH !A-/7T)A- '"ly 22# 1>&6. 5 The h"s*and shall fi2 the residence of the fa$ily. B"t the co"rt $ay e2e$pt the %ife fro$ living %ith the h"s*and if he sho"ld live a*road "nless in the service of the 8ep"*lic. 4 The h"s*and and %ife are o*ligated to live together# o*serve $"t"al respect and fidelity# and render $"t"al help and s"pport. and 4 of 8.A. 6646 in relation to Sec. 4& of B.P. &&1# it is evident that the respondent !o$$ission does not lose 0"risdiction to hear and decide a pending dis+"alification case "nder Sec. 4& of B.P. &&1 even after the elections. 132 ,A- the 6o"se of 8epresentatives 7lectoral Tri*"nal ;687T< had 0"risdiction over the +"estion of the petitionerNs +"alifications after the elections. -o. The 687TNs 0"risdiction of all contests relating to the elections# ret"rns# and +"alifications of $e$*ers of !ongress *egins only after a candidate has *eco$e a $e$*er of the 6o"se of 8epresentatives. Puno# 4$ 1Concurrin(2: All her life# ?arcosN do$icile of origin %as Taclo*an. ,hen she $arried the for$er dictator# her do$icile *eca$e s"*0ect to change *y la% and the right to change it %as given *y Article 113 of the !!. She has *een in Taclo*an since 1>>2 and has lived in Tolosa since A"g"st 1>>4. Both places are %ithin the (irst !ongressional =istrict of Heyte.

Francisco# 4$ 1Concurrin(2: 8esidence for election p"rposes $eans do$icile. ?arcos has *een in Taclo*an since 1>>2 and has lived in Tolosa since A"g"st 1>>4. Both places are %ithin the (irst !ongressional =istrict of Heyte. Ro'ero# 4$ 1Separate2: ,o$enNs rights as per choosing her do$icile after h"s*andNs death is evident in this case. ?arcosN living in Heyte is s"fficient to $eet the legal residency re+"ire$ent. 5itu(# 4$ 1Separate2: )t see$s "nso"nd to vote for so$eone %ho has already *een declared dis+"alified. The !o"rt refrain fro$ any "nd"e encroach$ent on the "lti$ate e2ercise of a"thority *y the 7lectoral Tri*"nal on $atters %hich# *y no less than a constit"tional fiat# are e2plicitly %ithin their e2cl"sive do$ain. /oted for dis$issal. ,endo6a# 4$ 1Concurrin(2: The iss"e is %hether or not the !A?7H7! has the po%er to dis+"alify candidates on the gro"nd that they lacE eligi*ility for the office to %hich they seeE to *e elected. )t has none and the +"alifications of candidates $ay *e +"estioned only in the event they are elected# *y filing a petition for +"o %arranto or an election protest in an appropriate for"$ ;not necessarily !A?7H7!# *"t the 687T<. Padilla# 4$ 1 issentin(2: Provisions in the !onstit"tion sho"ld *e adhered to. The controversy sho"ld not *e *l"rred *y acade$ic dis+"isitions. !A?7H7! did not co$$it grave a*"se of discretion in holding the petitioner dis+"alified. And the la% is clear that in all sit"ations# the votes cast for a dis+"alified candidate shall not *e co"nted.

Re(alado# 4$ 1 issentin(2: A %o$an loses her do$icile of origin once she gets $arried. The death of her h"s*and does not a"to$atically allo% her do$icile to shift to its original. S"ch theory is not stated in any of the provisions of la%. a)ide# 4r$ 4$ 1 issentin(2: A %rit of certiorari $ay only *e granted if a govern$ent *ranch or agency has acted %itho"t or in e2cess of its 0"risdiction. The !A?7H7!Ns resol"tions are %ithin the scope and 0"risdiction of this partic"lar agencyNs po%ers. )n agree$ent %ith 8egalado# reD %o$anJs do$icile. &. $a+"era v *orra l-24461 Facts: A +"estion of constit"tionality of 8ep"*lic Act 4421 %as filed *y Heon G. ?a+"era. 8ep"*lic Act -o. 4421 re+"ires a candidate to post s"rety *ond e+"ivalent to one-year salary of position to %hich he is a candidate# %hich *ond shall *e forfeited in favor of the govern$ent# if the candidate# e2cept %hen declared %inner# fails to o*tain at lest 13P of the votes cast for the office# there *eing not $ore than fo"r candidates for the sa$e office. Issue:,hether or not 8ep"*lic Act -o. 4421 constit"tionalQ Rulin(: !ES$ The co"rt resolved %itho"t pre0"dice to rendering an e2tended decision to declare that said 8ep"*lic Act -o. 4421 is "nconstit"tional and hence n"ll and void. The said property +"alifications are inconsistent %ith the nat"re and essence of the 8ep"*lican Syste$ ordained in o"r constit"tion and principle of social 0"stice "nderlying the sa$e# for said political syste$ is pre$ised "pon the tenet that sovereignty resides in the people and all govern$ent

a"thority e$anates fro$ the$# and this# in t"rn# i$plies necessarily that the right to vote and to *e voted for shall not *e dependent "pon the %ealth of the individ"al concerned# %hereas social 0"stice pres"pposes e+"al opport"nity for all# rich and poor aliEe and that accordingly# no person shall# *y reason of poverty# *e denied the chance to *e elected to p"*lic office. The *ond re+"ired in 8ep"*lic Act -o. 4421 and the confiscation of said *ond are not predicated "pon the necessity of defraying certain e2penses or of co$pensating services given in connection %ith elections# and is therefore# ar*itrary and oppressive. The !onstit"tion only sets forth only age# citizenship# voting and residence +"alification# it does not re+"ire property +"alification to hold p"*lic office. Therefore# 8.A 4421 goes against the provision of o"r constit"tion# th"s# "nconstit"tional. >. frivaldo v co$elec 2.4 scra 44 FACTS:)n 1>&&# '"an (rivaldo %on as governor of Sorsogon. Salvador 7st"ye# President of the Heag"e of ?"nicipalities of Sorsogon# filed %ith the !A?7H7! a petition for ann"l$ent of (rivaldoJs election and procla$ation *eca"se apparently# (rivaldo# in 1>&5# %as nat"ralized as an A$erican. )n his defense# (rivaldo said that he %as forced to *e nat"ralized *eca"se the then President ?arcos %as after hi$G *"t that participating in the Philippine elections# he has effectively lost his A$erican citizenship p"rs"ant to A$erican la%s. 6e also assailed the petition as he clai$ed that it is in the nat"re of a +"o %arranto %hich is already filed o"t of ti$e# the sa$e not *eing filed ten days after his procla$ation. ISSUE: ,hether or not (rivaldo can validly serve as a governor.

HEL : No$ 6e has not regained (ilipino citizenship. As far as Philippine la% is concerned# he is not a (ilipino. 6e lost his citizenship %hen he declared allegiance to the :nited States. 7ven if he did lose his :S citizenship# that did not restore his *eing a (ilipino *eca"se he did not "ndergo nat"ralization or repatriation proceedings. -either did his participation in the 1>&& elections restore his Philippine citizenship. At *est# he is a stateless person. 6e cannot serve as governor %hen he o%es allegiance to a foreign state. The fact that he %as elected *y the people of Sorsogon does not e2c"se this patent violation of the sal"tary r"le li$iting p"*lic office and e$ploy$ent only to the citizens of this co"ntry. The +"alifications prescri*ed for elective office cannot *e erased *y the electorate alone. The %ill of the people as e2pressed thro"gh the *allot cannot c"re the vice of ineligi*ility# especially if they $istaEenly *elieved# as in this case# that the candidate %as +"alified. A*vio"sly# this r"le re+"ires strict application %hen the deficiency is lacE of citizenship. )f a person seeEs to serve in the 8ep"*lic of the Philippines# he $"st o%e his total loyalty to this co"ntry only# a*0"ring and reno"ncing all fealty and fidelity to any other state. 13. garcia v coa co$$issioner 4.32. 777 additional cases# 'entioned *y passin($ 11. $onsanto v factoran &ardon 'oes not E(ting ish Civil )iabilities * +t is &rospective Facts: ?onsanto %as the Asst Treas"rer of !al*ay"g !ity. She %as charged for the cri$e of 7stafa thro"gh (alsification of P"*lic =oc"$ents. She %as fo"nd g"ilty and %as sentenced to 0ail. She %as ho%ever granted pardon *y ?arcos. She then %rote a letter to the ?inister of (inance for her to *e reinstated

to her for$er position since it %as still vacant. She %as also re+"esting for *acE pays. The ?inister of (inance referred the iss"e to the Affice of the President and (actoran denied ?onsantoJs re+"est averring that ?onsanto $"st first seeE appoint$ent and that the pardon does not reinstate her for$er position. Also# ?onsanto avers that *y reason of the pardon# she sho"ld no longer *e co$pelled to ans%er for the civil lia*ilities *ro"ght a*o"t *y her acts. ISSUE: ,hether or not ?onsanto sho"ld *e reinstated to her for$er post. HEL : A pardon looEs to the f"t"re. )t is not retrospective. )t $aEes no a$ends for the past. )t affords no relief for %hat has *een s"ffered *y the offender. )t does not i$pose "pon the govern$ent any o*ligation to $aEe reparation for %hat has *een s"ffered. KSince the offense has *een esta*lished *y 0"dicial proceedings# that %hich has *een done or s"ffered %hile they %ere in force is pres"$ed to have *een rightf"lly done and 0"stly s"ffered# and no satisfaction for it can *e re+"ired.L This %o"ld e2plain %hy petitioner# tho"gh pardoned# cannot *e entitled to receive *acEpay for lost earnings and *enefits. An the other hand# civil lia*ility arising fro$ cri$e is governed *y the 8P!. )t s"*sists not%ithstanding service of sentence# or for any reason the sentence is not served *y pardon# a$nesty or co$$"tation of sentence. PetitionerJs civil lia*ility $ay only *e e2ting"ished *y the sa$e ca"ses recognized in the !ivil !ode# na$elyD pay$ent# loss of the thing d"e# re$ission of the de*t# $erger of the rights of creditor and de*tor# co$pensation and novation. 12. "s v po$peya FACTS:This case is regarding the co$plaint filed *y the prosec"ting attorney of the Province of )loilo# charging Silvestre Po$peya %ith violation of the $"nicipal ordinance of

)loilo for %illf"lly# illegally# and cri$inally and %itho"t 0"stifia*le $otive failing to render service on patrol d"ty# re+"ired "nder said $"nicipal ordinance.:pon arraign$ent# Po$peya presented a de$"rrer# stating that the acts charged in the co$plaint do not constit"te a cri$e and that the $"nicipal ordinance is "nconstit"tional for *eing rep"gnant to the Arganic Act of the Philippines# %hich g"arantees the li*erty of the citizens. The trial 0"dge s"stained said de$"rrer and ordered the dis$issal of the co$plaint. 6ence# this appeal. ISSUE:,@- said la% is in violation of the provisions of the Philippine Bill in depriving citizens of their rights therein g"aranteed HEL : )s the assailed $"nicipal ordinance a violation of the Philippine BillQ The $"nicipal ordinance %as enacted p"rs"ant to the provisions of Act -o. 153># the specific p"rpose of %hich is to re+"ire each a*le-*odied $ale resident of the $"nicipality# *et%een the ages of 1& and ..# as %ell as each ho"seholder %hen so re+"ired *y the president# to assist in the $aintenance of peace and good order in the co$$"nity# *y apprehending ladrones# etc.# as %ell as *y giving infor$ation of the e2istence of s"ch persons in the locality. The a$end$ent contains a p"nish$ent for those %ho $ay *e called "pon for s"ch service# and %ho ref"se to render the sa$e. The +"estion asEed *y the S"pre$e !o"rt is %hether there is anything in the la%# organic or other%ise# in force in the Philippine )slands# %hich prohi*its the central Govern$ent# or any govern$ental entity connected there%ith# fro$ adopting or enacting r"les and reg"lations for

the $aintenance of peace and good govern$entQ )n ans%ering this# the S"pre$e !o"rt cited the tri*al relations of the pri$itive $an# the fe"dal syste$# the days of the Fh"ndredsF -- all of %hich s"pport the idea of an ancient o*ligation of the individ"al to assist in the protection of the peace and good order of his co$$"nity. The S"pre$e !o"rt held that the po%er e2ercised "nder the provisions of Act -o. 153> falls %ithin the police po%er of the state and that the state %as f"lly a"thorized and 0"stified in conferring the sa$e "pon the $"nicipalities of the Philippine )slands and that# therefore# the provisions of the said Act are constit"tional and not in violation nor in derogation of the rights of the persons affected there*y. 15. al*a v evangelista 'an"ary 1# 1>.4D President appointed /icente Ala0ar as /ice-?ayor of 8o2as !ityG 'an"ary 6D Ass"$ed officeG ?arch 51D Affir$ed *y !o$$ission on Appoint$ents -ove$*er 1>..D 6e received %ord fro$ Assistant 72ec"tive Secretary 7nri+"e I"e$a# stating that the President had designated '"liano Al*ato the position# asEing Ala0ar to t"rn over the office to Al*a .Al*a liEe%ise received %ord of his appoint$ent fro$ 72ec"tive Secretary (red 8"iz !astro.Ala0ar instit"ted +"o %arranto proceedings# statingD1.Al*a "s"rped the vice $ayor office.2.There %as no vacancy at the ti$e of appoint$ent There %as no legal ca"se or reason for the re$oval of Ala0ar Ho%er !o"rtD Ala0ar co"ld Eeep the position. Al*a appealed. )n the $eanti$e# Ala0ar filed a petition for e2ec"tion of 0"dg$ent# granted *y the co"rt# *"t the decision %as not e2ec"ted *eca"se Al*a appealed to the S!. S"pre$e !o"rtD Al*a asEed for a preli$inary in0"ction fro$ Ala0ar

taEing the position# "ntil the final decision %as $ade. Solicitor GeneralD %anted to intervene *eca"se he %as not a*le to defend the constit"tionality of 8A 635 in the lo%er co"rt. Section & of 8A 635 declares the vice $ayorship of 8o2as city to *e ter$ina*le at the pleas"re of the appointing a"thority Al*a arg"ed that the trial co"rt erredD 1.Predicated decision on $istaEen ass"$ption that Al*a *elonged to the "nclassified civil service 2. -ot declaring %itho"t the necessity of $aEing a prono"nce$ent of its validity# that 8A 63& %as intended to e2cl"de the office of 8o2as !ity fro$ persons *elonging to the "nclassified service5.-ot declaring that n the case of 'over v Borra# S! passed "pon the validity of section &.4.6olding that the office of vice-$ayor is neither pri$arily confidential nor policy-deter$ining .. -ot holding that 8A 635 section > %as a valid e2ercise of !ongress *y the !onstit"tion. Ala0ar contends that 8A 635 section & %as inco$pati*le %ith the constit"tional inhi*ition that Kno officer or e$ployee in the !ivil service shall *e re$oved or s"spended e2cept for ca"se as provided *y la%L and that the t%o provisions %ere rep"gnant and irreconcila*le. )ss"eD ,A- section & of 8A 635 %as constit"tional. 9es. ,hile section & of 8A 635 is see$ingly inco$pati*le %ith the constit"tion that prohi*its re$oval# the co"rt $aEes a distinction *et%een re$oval and e2piration of ten"re. The vice $ayor office %as created in !ongress to *e held at the pleas"re of the President. The constit"tion only refers to fi2ed ter$s. ;)nterpreting it that %ay %o"ld $aEe the stat"te valid as opposed to Ala0arJs interpretation. Ass"$ing *"t not conceding a gray area in the la%# there %as still clearly roo$ for a valid interpretation# %hich the co"rts taEe *eca"se

of the pres"$ption of constit"tionality.< (or anyone to arg"e against the constit"tionality of a stat"te# it $"st *e sho%n that the stat"te violates the constit"tion clearly# palpa*ly# plainly# and in s"ch $anner as to leave no hesitation in the $ind of the co"rt. The co"rt pres"$es every stat"te is valid# *ased on the theory of separation of po%ers. 6eldD Petition affir$ed. Ho%er co"rt decision is reversed# Al*a is /ice?ayor