Monday, July 30, 2012

COMELEC Authority on Party Identity and Leadership



SC Upholds Comelec's Jurisdiction Over Cases Pertaining to Party Leadership and the Nominations of Party-List Representatives  


by Supreme Court

The Court En Banc has unanimously affirmed the ruling of the Commission of Elections (COMELEC) to recognize the nominees listed in the Certificate of Nomination filed by Citizen’ Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) Party List’s President Emmanuel Villanueva as the legitimate nominees of the party list and to expunge from its records the Certificate of Nomination filed by Pia Derla.

In a 15-page decision penned by Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno, the Court held that RA 7941 (Party-List System Act) vested the COMELEC with “jurisdiction over the nomination of party-list representatives and prescribing the qualifications of each nominee” and that no grave abuse of discretion can be attributed to the COMELEC’s First Division and COMELEC En Banc which had declared President Villanueva the proper party to submit CIBAC’s Certificate of Nomination instead of Perla, who allegedly served as acting secretary-general. As provided in Atienza v. Commission of Elections, COMELEC also possesses the authority to resolve intra-party disputes as a necessary tributary of its constitutionally mandated power to enforce election laws and register political parties. “The power to rule upon questions of party identity and leadership is exercised by the COMELEC as an incident to its enforcement powers,” the Court declared.

It likewise denied the petition for certiorari filed by Petitioners Luis K. Lokin, Jr. and Teresita E. Planas, the nominees of Derla, under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court for being filed outside the required 30 day period. It stressed that “while Rule 64 refers to the same remedy of certiorari as the general rule in Rule 65, they cannot be equated as they provide for different reglementary periods. Rule 65 provides for a period of 60 days while Section 3, Rule 64 expressly provides for only 30 days.”

CIBAC Party-List is a multi-sectoral registered to fight graft and corruption and to promote ethical conduct in the country’s public service. The COMELEC ruled that Derla was unable to prove her authority to the Certificate of Nomination, whereas President Villanueva presented overwhelming evidence of his authority from CIBAC to do so.

(GR No. 193808, Lokin, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, June 26, 2012)


Emphasis and links provided by Broker Rem Ramirez 0922.883.9308 broker.ramirez@yahoo.com.ph

For bar questions and law subjects reviewers, visit www.onlinereview.com.ph

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

SC Dismisses RTC Deputy Sheriff for Receiving Kickbacks from Publisher of Judicial Notices


SC.JUDICIARY.GOV.PH

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a Regional Trial Court (RTC) deputy sheriff for receiving kickbacks, amounting to P24,905.60, from the publisher of judicial notices issued by his court.

In a nine-page per curiam decision, the SC En Banc found respondent Rolando Tomas, Deputy Sheriff of the Santiago City Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty, and dismissed him from service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except his accrued leave credits, with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations. The Court approved the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)’s recommendation finding Tomas liable for grave misconduct and dishonesty but rejected the OCA’s recommended penalty of suspension. 

The Court also directed the Legal Office of the OCA to file with the Santiago City Prosecutor theappropriate criminal complaints against respondent Tomas in connection with the criminal aspect of the instant case under Section 5 of PD No. 1079, Revising and Consolidating All Laws and Decrees Regulating the Publication of Judicial Notices, Advertisements for Public Biddings, Notices of Auction Sales and Other Similar Notices, and Section 3(b) of RA No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.


Complainant Francisco Taguinod, publisher and editor of City Star, a newspaper locally published in Santiago City, previously initiated in Taguinod v. Madrid an administrative complaint against Branch 21’s presiding judge, Fe Albano Madrid, for irregularities in the allocation of judicial notices for publication by local publishers. In the course of the investigation by the OCA, Taguinod presented documentary evidence showing receipt by respondent of sums of money from March to November 1996 in exchange for City Star’s publication of judicial notices. As respondent Tomas was not impleaded in that case, the OCA recommended his separate investigation, which the Court approved.

In his comment to the charge, respondent Tomas readily admitted receiving payments from Taguinod in exchange for City Star’s publication of judicial notices. By way of defense, Tomas qualified that he “never demanded” any money from Taguinod. After investigation, the OCA recommended Tomas’ suspension for six months. 

The Court pointed out that Section 5 of PD 1079 prohibits court personnel from “directly or indirectly demand[ing] of or receiv[ing] x x x money, commission or gifts of any kind” for the privilege of publishing judicial notices. As such, the Court held that respondent’s defense that he “never demanded any money or any rebate” from Taguinod does not spare him from liability. “Section 5 not only prohibits local court personnel from “demanding” pay-offs, it also bars receipt of such pay-offs. Respondent will take himself out of the ambit of Section 5 only if he did neither,” the Court said.

By accepting pay-offs from Taguinod, the Court further held that respondent Tomas also violated Section 2(e), Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, mandating that court personnel shall not “solicit or accept any gift, loan, gratuity, discount, favor, hospitality, or service under circumstances from which it could reasonably be inferred that a major purpose of the donor is to influence the court personnel in performing official duties.”

The Court noted that from March to November 1996, when City Star published judicial notices from Branch 21, for which respondent accepted 10 checks from Taguinod, respondent controlled the distribution of Branch 21’s judicial notices among Santiago City’s publishers because he was assigned this task by the judge. “It was in Taguinod’s interest, therefore, to give ‘discounts’ to respondent to influence respondent to keep assigning judicial notices to City Star. The 10 checks that Taguinod issued and respondent received speak volumes of this convenient, albeit unethical, arrangement. Section 2(e), Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct was crafted precisely to punish court personnel who engage in such practices,” the Court held.

The Court differed from the investigator’s view that respondent’s “unhesitant[ing] and candid admi[ssion]” of having received pay-offs from Taguinod is akin to “a plea of guilty [in criminal proceedings] that account attenuate the penalty imposed.” The Court noted that “the rule in criminal proceedings treating confessions as mitigating circumstance finds no rigorous application in administrative proceedings where the respondent, unlike the accused, stands to lose neither liberty nor property but a public trust to render service, a privilege burdened with numerous prohibitions such as those respondent violated.”

“To treat factual admissions of court personnel in disciplinary proceedings as standard basis to relax penalties not only renders nugatory the penalty structure carefully calibrated in the Uniform Rules but also provides incentive for erring employees to make strategic admissions calculated to spare them from receiving stiff penalties. The interest of maintaining a disciplined, ethical, and efficient corps of judicial employees militates against adopting such policy,” the Court added.

The Court also pointed out that PD 1079 is a special law providing penal sanctions for its violation. On the other hand, the Court noted that Section 3(b) of RA 3019 punishes as corrupt the practice of public officers of “directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the Government and any other party, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law.” Thus, the Court ruled that the documentary evidence on record coupled with respondent’s admission warrant referral of this matter to the Santiago City Prosecutor’s Office for violation of these penal provisions.

Concurring in the decision are Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, Antonio T. Carpio, Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Jose C. Mendoza, Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, Bienvenido L. Reyes, and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe. Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. took no part. Justice Jose Portugal Perez also took no part as he acted on the matter as Deputy Court Administrator. (AM No. P-09-2660, Taguinod v. Tomas, November 29, 2011)

Emphasis and links provided by Broker Rem Ramirez 0922.883.9308 broker.ramirez@yahoo.com.ph

For bar questions and law subjects reviewers, visit www.onlinereview.com.ph       

Monday, July 9, 2012

SC Upholds COMELEC Purchase of PCOS Machines


sc.judiciary.gov.ph - The Court En Banc by a vote of 11 to 3 has dismissed the four petitions challenging the validity of the purchase of PCOS (Precinct Count Optical Scan) machines by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) from Smartmatic.

The Court found that the main Contract for the Automated Election System (AES) between COMELEC and Smartmatic containing the Option to Puchase (OTP) the PCOS machines was still existing when Smartmatic extended the period of the OTP and when COMELEC exercised the said option, as the performance security bond had not yet been returned to Smartmatic. The return would have terminated the AES Contract as expressly provided therein.

The Court also lifted the temporary restraining order it had issued last April 24, so the COMELEC is now free to implement the Contract for the Purchase of the PCOS machines.

The ponente is Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, and he is joined by Acting Chief Justice Senior Justice Antonio T. Carpio and Justices Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad, Jose Portugal Perez, Jose Catral Mendoza, Ma. Lourdes P. Aranal Sereno, and Bienvenido L. Reyes.

Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr.’s dissenting opinion is joined by Justices Arturo D. Brion and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe.

For bar questions and law subjects reviewers, visit www.onlinereview.com.ph



SC: Jalosjos Stays as Second District Zamboanga Sibugay Representative


06 July 2012 - Romeo M. Jalosjos, Jr. will stay as Representative of the Second District of Zamboanga Sibugay. Jalosjos won and was declared winner as Representative of the Second District of Zamboanga Sibugay in the May 2010 elections.

Voting unanimously, the Supreme Court En Banc reiterated the demarcation line between the jurisdiction of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) as it granted the petition of Jalosjos (GR No. 192474) to reverse and set aside the COMELEC en banc’s June 3, 2010 order that granted the motion for reconsideration of his rival Dan Erasmo, Sr. and declared Jalosjos ineligible to seek election in his current post for failing to satisfy the residency requirement.

In a nine-page decision penned by Justice Roberto A. Abad, the Court also reinstated the COMELEC Second Division’s resolution dated February 23, 2010 dismissing Erasmo’s petition to cancel Jalosjos’ Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for insufficiency in form and substance. It also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the petition in GR No. 192704 and GR No. 193566 concerning the COMELEC’s failure to annul Jalosjos’ proclamation and his exclusion from the voters’ list, respectively.

“The Court has already settled the question of when the jurisdiction of the COMELEC ends and when that of the HRET begins. The proclamation of a congressional candidate following the election divests COMELEC of jurisdiction over disputes relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the proclaimed Representative in favor of the HRET,” ruled the Court.

The Court held that when the COMELEC en banc issued its order dated June 3, 2010, Jalosjos had already been proclaimed on May 13, 2010 as winner in the election. Thus, the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction when it still passed upon the issue of his qualification and declared him ineligible for the office of Representative of the 2nd District of Zamboanga Sibugay. It further held that the last standing official action in his case before the election day was the ruling of the COMELEC’s Second Division that allowed his name to stay on the voters’ registration list.

“With the fact of [Jalosjos’] proclamation and assumption of office, any issue regarding his qualification for the same, like his alleged lack of the required residence, was solely for the HRET to consider and decide,” ruled the Court.

The Court held that the COMELEC en banc exceeded its jurisdiction in declaring Jalosjos ineligible for the position of representative for the said post, which he had won in the elections, since it had ceased to have jurisdiction over his case.

The Court also dismissed Erasmo’s petition questioning the validity of the registration of Jalosjos as a voter and the COMELEC’s failure to annul his proclamation, ruling that “the Court cannot usurp the power vested by the Constitution solely on the HRET.”

In May 2007, Jalosjos, Jr. ran for Mayor of Tampilisan, Zamboanga del Norte and won. While serving as Tampilisan Mayor, he bought a house and lot in Brgy. Veterans Village, Ipil Zamboanga, Sibugan and occupied the same in September 2008. In May 2009, Jalosjos applied with the Election Registration Board (ERB) of Ipil, Zamboanga, Sibugay for transfer of his voter’s registration record to Precinct 0051F of Brgy. Veterans Village.

The ERB approved Jalosjos’ application and denied Erasmo’s opposition thereto. Erasmo later filed a petition to exclude Jalosjos from the list of registered voters of the above-named precinct before the First Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Ipil-Tungawan-R.T. Lim (MCTC). The MCTC, excluding Jalosjos from the list of registered voters in question, ruled that he did not abandon his domicile in Tampilisan since he continued even then to serve as its Mayor. Jalosjos appealed his  case to Regional Trial Court of Pagadian City, which affirmed the MCTC decision.

Jalosjos then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals, which issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the trial courts from enforcing their decisions.

On November 28, 2009, Jalosjos filed Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Representative of the 2nd District of Zamboanga Sibugay for the May 2010 elections. Erasmo filed a petition to cancel Jalosjos’ COC before the COMELEC, claiming that Jalosjos made material misrepresentations in that COC when he indicated in it that he resided in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay.

On February 23, 2010, the COMELEC SecondDivision dismissed Erasmo’s petition for insufficiency in form and substance. While Eramos’ motion for reconsideration was pending before the COMELC en banc, Jalosjos won as Representative of the Second District of Zamboanga Siguay in the May 10, 2010 elections and was proclaimed winner. Subsequently, the COMELEC en banc granted Erasmo’s motion for reconsideration and declared Jalosjos ineligible to seek election as Representative of the said district.

Both Jalosjos and Erasmo came up to this Court on certiorari. In GR 192474, Jalosjos challenges the COMELEC’s finding that he did not meet the residency requirement and its denial of his right to due process, citing Roces v. HRET. In GR 192704, Erasmo assails the COMELEC en banc’s failure to annul Jalosjos’ proclamation as election Representative of the Second District of Zamboanga Sibugay despite his declared ineligibility.

Meanwhile, on June 2, 2010, the CA rendered judgment in the voter’s exclusion case before it, holding that the lower courts erred in excluding Jalosjos from the voters list of Barangay Veterans Village in Ipil since he was qualified under the Constitution and RA 8189 to vote in that place. Eramo filed a petition for review of the CA decision with the Court.

Subsequently, the Court ordered the consolidation of the three related petitions. (GR No. 192474, Jalosjos, Jr. v. COMELEC; GR No. 192702, Erasmo v. Jalosjos, Jr.;  GR No. 193566, Erasmo, Sr. v. Jalosjos, June 26, 2012)

source: sc.judiciary.gov.ph 
emphasis provided by:  Broker Rem Ramirez