• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

a. Flores v Drilon (223 SCRA 568) (2) Whether or not the SBMA posts are merely ex officio to the position of Mayor of Olongapo City and thus an excepted FACTS: circumstance. (3) Whether or not the Constitutional provision allowing an elective official to receive double compensation (Sec. 8, Art. The constitutionality of Sec. 13, par. (d), of R.A. IX-B) would be useless if no elective official may beappointed 7227, otherwise known as the "Bases Conversion and to another post. Development Act of 1992," under which respondent Mayor Richard J. Gordon of Olongapo City was appointed Chairman (4) Whether there is legislative encroachment on the and Chief Executive Officer of the Subic Bay Metropolitan appointing authority of the President. Authority (SBMA), is challenged with prayer for prohibition, preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. Said (5) Whether Mayor Gordon may retain any and all per diems, provision provides the President the power to appoint an allowances and other emoluments which he may have administrator of the SBMA provided that in the first year of its received pursuant to his appointment. operation, the Olongapo mayor shall be appointed as chairman and chief of executive of the Subic Authority. HELD Petitioners maintain that such infringes to the constitutional provision of Sec. 7, first par., Art. IX-B, of the Constitution, (1) YES, Sec. 7 of Art. IX-B of the Constitution Provides: No which states that "no elective official shall elective official shall be eligible for appointment or be eligible forappointment or designation in any capacity to designation in any capacity to any public office or position any public officer or position during his tenure," The during his tenure. Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the petitioners also contend that Congress encroaches upon the primary functions of his position, no appointive official shall discretionary power of the President to appoint. hold any other office or employment in the Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including ISSUE: government-owned or controlled corporations or their Whether or not said provision of the RA 7227 violates the subsidiaries. The subject proviso directs the President to constitutional prescription against appointment or designation appoint an elective official i.e. the Mayor of Olongapo City, to of elective officials to other government posts. other government post (as Chairman and CEO of SBMA). This is precisely what the Constitutionprohibits. It seeks to prevent RULING: a situation where a local elective official will work for his appointment in an executive position in government, and The court held the Constitution seeks to prevent a public thus neglect his constitutents. officer to hold multiple functions since they are accorded with (2) NO, Congress did not contemplate making the SBMA posts a public office that is a full time job to let them nctionfu as automatically attached to the Office of the Mayor thoutwi without the distraction of other governmental duties. need of appointment. The phrase “shall be appointed” unquestionably shows the intent to make the SBMA posts The Congress gives the President the appointing authority appointive and not merely adjunct to the post of Mayor of which it cannot limit by providing the condition that in the first Olongapo City. year of the operation the Mayor of Olongapo City shall assume (3) NO, Sec. 8 does not affect the constitutionalityof the the Chairmanship. The court points out that the appointing subject proviso. In any case, the Vice-President for example, authority the congress gives to the President is no power at all an elective official who may be appointed to a cabinet post, as it curtails the right of the President to exercise discretion of may receive the compensation attached to the cabinet whom to appoint by limiting his choice. position if specifically authorized by law. (4) YES, although Section 13(d) itself vests in the President the power to appoint the Chairman of SBMA, he really has no choice but to appoint the Mayor of Olongapo City. The power FLORES V DRILON of choice is the heart of the power to appoint. Appointment involves an exercise of discretion of FACTS whom to appoint. Hence, when Congress clothes the President with the power to appoint an officer, it cannot at the same Petitioners, taxpayers and employees of U.S facilities at Subic, time limit the choice of the President to only onecandidate. challenge the constitutionality of Sec. 13 (d) of the Bases Such enactment effectively eliminates the discretion of the Conversion and Development Act of 1992 which directs the appointing power to choose and constitutes an President to appoint a professional manager as administrator irregular restriction on the power of appointment. While it may of the SBMA…provided that “for the 1st year of its operations, be viewed that the proviso merely sets the qualifications of the mayor of Olongapo City (Richard Gordon) shall be the officer during the first year of operations of A,SBM i.e., he appointed as the chairman and the CEO of the Subic must be the Mayor of Olongapo City, it is manifestly an abuse Authority.” of congressional authority to prescribe qualifications where only one, and no other, can qualify. Since the ineligibility of an ISSUES elective official for appointment remains all throughout his tenure or during his incumbency, he may however resign first (1) Whether the proviso violates the constitutional from his elective post to cast off the constitutionally-attached proscription againstappointment or designation of elective disqualification before he may be considered fit for officials to other government posts. appointment. Consequently, as long as he is an incumbent, an 1 elective official remains ineligible for appointment to another Held: public office. The issue in the civil case constitutes a valid prejudicial (5) YES, as incumbent elective official, Gordon is ineligible for question to warrant appointment to the position of Chairman and CEO of SBMA; hence, his appointment thereto cannot be sustained. He Suspension of the arraignment and further proceedings in the however remains Mayor of Olongapo City, and his acts as criminal case against SBMA official are not necessarily null and void; he yma be considered a de facto officer, and in accordance with Petitioners. The facts and issues involved in the civil action jurisprudence, is entitled to such benefits. and the criminal case are closely related. The filing of the criminal case was premised on petitioners’ alleged partiality and evident bad faith in not paying private respondents’ salaries and per diems as sectoral representatives, while the b. Tuanda v. Sandiganbayan civil action was instituted precisely to resolve whether or not the designations of private respondents as sectoral G.R. No. 110544 October 17, 1995 representatives were made in accordance with law. FACTS: The conditions and elements of de facto officershipre a the following: Private respondents Delia Estrellanes and Bartolome Binaohan were designated as industrial labor sectoral representative 1) There must be a de jure office; and agricultural labor sectoral representative respectively, for the Sangguniang Bayan of Jimalalud, Province of Negros 2) There must be color of right or general acquiescence by the Oriental by then Secretary of the Department of Local public; Government. They took their oath of office. Petitioners filed a petition with the Office of the President for review and recall And of said designations. However, the secretary of the local government thru a letter denied the petition and enjoined 3) There must be actual physical possession of the office in Mayor Reynaldo Tuanda to recognize private respondents as good faith. One can qualify as a de facto officer only if all the sectoral representatives. Undaunted, petitioners filed an foretasted elements are present. There can be no de facto action with the RTC of Dumaguete City to declare null and officer where there is no de jure office, although ether may be void the designations of private respondents as sectoral a de facto officer in a de jure office. representatives. c. Luna v. Rodriguez, 37 Phil 136 (1917) Meanwhile, private respondents also filed before the G.R. No. L-12581 March 13, 1917 Sandiganbayan a complaint against petitioners for violation of section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019 on the ground that petitioners refused to give them their per diems, salaries and other JOSE LINO LUNA, Petitioner, vs. EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ, privileges and benefits as sectoral representatives. Petitioners Respondent. filed a motion with the Sandiganbayan for suspensionof the proceedings on the ground that a prejudicial question exists in the civil case pending before the RTC of Dumaguete City. Ramon Diokno & Agapito Ygnacio for petitioner. The RTC rendered a decision declaring null and void ab initio the designations issued by the Department of Local Sumulong & Estrada for respondent. Government to the private respondents as sectoral representatives for having been done in violation of Section 146 (2) of the Local Government Code. Meanwhile, the MORELAND, J.: Sandiganbayan issued a resolution denying the motion for suspension of proceedings filed by petitioners. This is an action based upon the alleged usurpation of a public office, that of governor of the Province of Rizal, in which a demurrer was filed to the complaint. The question before us Issues: arises on the issues framed by the demurrer. Whether the legality or validity of private respondents’

Load more

  10

Copy Link