Bar Q and A#17 – Political Law Bar Q and A

1.) The Philippine National Bank was then one of the leading government-owned banks and it was under the audit jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit (COA). A few years ago, it was privatized. What is the effect, if any, of the privatization of PNB on the audit Jurisdiction of the COA?

In accordance with the ruling in Philippine Airlines v. COA, 245 SCRA 39, since the Philippine National Bank is no longer owned by the Government, the Commission on Audit no longer has jurisdiction to audit it as an institution. Under Section 2(2), Article IX-D of the Constitution, it is government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries which are subject to audit by the Commission on Audit. However, in accordance with Section 2(1), Article IX- D of the Constitution, the Commission on Audit can audit the Philippine National Bank with respect to its accounts because the Government still has equity in it.

Textbox

2.) Towards the end of the year, the Commission on Audit (COA) sought the remainder of its appropriation from the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). However, the DBM refused because the COA had not yet submitted a report on the expenditures relative to the earlier amount released to it. And, pursuant to the “no report, no release” policy of the DBM, COA is not entitled to any further releases in the meantime. COA counters that such a policy contravenes the guaranty of fiscal autonomy granted by the Constitution. Is COA entitled to receive the rest of its appropriations even without complying with the DBM policy?

YES. COA is entitled to the rest of its appropriations even without complying with the DBM policy. That the no report, no release policy may not be validly enforced against offices vested with fiscal autonomy is not disputed. Indeed, such policy cannot be enforced against offices possessing fiscal autonomy without violating Article IX (A), Section 5 of the Constitution which provides: “Sec. 5. The Commission shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Their approved appropriations shall be automatically and regularly released.” (CSC v. Department of Budget and Management, July 22, 2005)

Textbox

3.) The Congress establishes by law Philippine Funds, Inc., a private corporation, to receive foreign donations coming from abroad during national and local calamities and disasters, and to enable the unhampered and speedy disbursements of the donations through the mere action of its Board of Directors. Thereby, delays in the release of the donated funds occasioned by the stringent rules of procurement would be avoided. Also, the releases would not come under the jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit (COA). Can the Congress pass the law that would exempt the foreign grants from the jurisdiction of the COA? Explain your answer.

Congress cannot exempt the foreign grants from the jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit. Its jurisdiction extends to all government-owned or controlled corporations, including those funded by donations through the Government. (Art IX-D, Sec. 3 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution; and Petitioner Corporation v. Executive Secretary, G.R. Nos. 147036-37 & 147811, April 10, 2012, 269 SCRA 49)

Textbox

4.) 1. Distinguish civil rights from political rights and give an example of each right. 2. What are the relations of civil and political rights to human rights? Explain.

CIVIL RIGHTS refer to the rights secured by the constitution of any state or country to all its inhabitants and not connected with the organization or administration of POLITICAL RIGHTS consist in the power to participate, directly or indirectly, in the management of the government. CIVIL RIGHTS define the relations of individual amongst themselves while POLITICAL RIGHTS defines the relations of individuals vis-a-vis the state. CIVIL RIGHTS extend protection to all inhabitants of a state, while POLITICAL RIGHTS protect merely its citizens.

Examples of civil rights are the rights against involuntary servitude, religious freedom, the guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, liberty of abode, the prohibition against imprisonment for debt, the right to travel, equal protection, due process, the right to marry, right to return to this country and right to education.

Examples of political rights are the right of suffrage, the right of assembly, and the right to petition for redress of grievances.

Human rights are broader in scope than civil and political rights including social, economic, and cultural rights, and are inherent in persons from the fact of their humanity. On the other hand, some civil and political rights are not natural rights. They exist because they are protected by a constitution or granted by law. For example, the liberty to enter into contracts is not a human right but is a civil right.

Textbox

5.) Congress enacted a law to provide Filipinos, especially the poor and the marginalized, access and information to a full range of modern family planning methods, including contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectibles, non- abortifacient hormonal contraceptives, and family planning products and supplies, but expressly prohibited abortion. To ensure its objectives, the law made it mandatory for health providers to provide information on the full range of modern family planning methods, supplies and services, for schools to provide reproductive health education, for non-governmental medical practitioners to render mandatory 48 hours pro bono reproductive health services as a condition to Philhealth accreditation, and for couples desiring to marry to attend a family planning seminar prior to the issuance of a marriage license. It also punishes certain acts of refusals to carry out its mandates. The spouses Aguiluz, both Roman Catholics, filed a petition to declare the law as unconstitutional based on, among others, the following grounds: (a) It violates the right to life, since it practically sanctions abortion. Despite express terms prohibiting abortion, petitioners claim that the family planning products and supplies oppose the initiation of life, which is a fundamental human right, and the sanction of contraceptive use contravenes natural law and is an affront to the dignity of man. (b) It violates the constitutional prohibition against involuntary servitude because it requires medical practitioners to render 48 hours of pro bono reproductive health services which may be against their will. Rule on each of the above objections.

a.) The law in question does not sanction abortion even in practical In the case of Imbong v. Ochoa (GR No. 204819, April 8, 2014), the law on its face expressly mentioned that abortion is not permissible, and this was the determinative factor in making the ruling. In the same case, the Court also found that the RH law was replete with provisions that embody the policy of protecting the unborn from the moment of fertilization. In addition, the majority of the court believes that the question of when life starts is a scientific and medical issue; hence, the Court refused to make a ruling on this issue.

b.) Involuntary servitude denotes compulsion or coercion to do something either through force, threats, intimidation or other means. The accreditation with the PhilHealth, as ruled by the Supreme Court in the case of Imbong v. Ochoa, should be viewed as an incentive and not a punishment. These health service providers also enjoy the liberty to choose which kind of health service they wish to provide. Clearly, there is no compulsion, force or threat upon them to render the pro bono services against their will.

Textbox

6.) Pedro bought a parcel of land from Smart Corporation, a realty firm engaged in developing and selling lots to the public. One of the restrictions in the deed of sale which was annotated in the title is that the lot shall be used by the buyer exclusively for residential purposes. A main highway having been constructed across the subdivision, the area became commercial in nature. The municipality later passed a zoning ordinance declaring the area as a commercial bank building on his lot. Smart Corporation went to court to stop the construction as violative of the building restrictions imposed by it. The corporation contends that the zoning ordinance cannot nullify the contractual obligation assumed by the buyer. Decide the case.

The case must be dismissed. As held in Ortigas and Company, Limited Partnership v. FEATI Bank and Trust Company, 94 SCRA 533, such a restriction in the contract cannot prevail over the zoning ordinance, because the enactment of the ordinance is a valid exercise of police power. It is hazardous to health and comfort to use the lot for residential purposes, since a highway crosses the subdivision and the area has become commercial.

Textbox

7.) In the deeds of sale to, and in the land titles of homeowners of a residential subdivision in Pasig City, there are restrictions annotated therein to the effect that only residential houses or structures may be built or constructed on the lots. However, the City Council of Pasig enacted an ordinance amending the existing zoning ordinance by changing the zone classification in that place from purely residential to commercial. "A", a lot owner, sold his lot to a banking firm and the latter started constructing a commercial building on the lot to house a bank inside the subdivision. The subdivision owner and the homeowners' association filed a case in court to stop the construction of the building for banking business purposes and to respect the restrictions embodied in the deed of sale by the subdivision developer to the lot owners, as well as the annotation in the titles. If you were the Judge, how would you resolve the case?

If I were the judge, I would dismiss the case. As held in Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership v. FEATI Bank and Trust Company, 94 SCRA 633, the zoning ordinance is a valid exercise of police power and prevails over the contractual stipulation restricting the use of the lot to residential purposes.

Textbox

8.) As a reaction to the rice shortage and the dearth of mining engineers, Congress passed a law requiring graduates of public science high school henceforth to take up agriculture or mining engineering as their college course. Several students protested, invoking their freedom to choose their profession. Is the law constitutional?

YES, the law is constitutional, it is valid exercise of the State’s police power. Police power concerns government enactments which precisely interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare or the common good and that the means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.

It cannot be denied that a rice shortage and a dearth of mining engineers are valid concerns that affect the common good and must be addressed by the State. Since the law is limited to public science high schools, it is within the police power of the State to require the graduates whose education it has subsidized to take up agriculture or mining engineering. The law provides for a lawful method geared toward a lawful objective, and as such may be considered to be a reasonable exercise of the State’s police power.

Textbox

9.) The National Building Code and its implementing rules provide, inter alia, that operators of shopping centers and malls should provide parking and loading spaces, in accordance with a prescribed ratio. The Solicitor General, heeding the call of the public for the provision of free parking spaces in malls, filed a case to compel said business concerns to discontinue their practice of collecting parking fees. The mall owners and operators oppose, saying that this is an invalid taking of their property, thus a violation of due process. The Solicitor General justifies it, however, claiming that it is a valid exercise of police power. Could the mall owners and operators be validly compelled to provide free parking to their customers?

NO, the mall owners and operators cannot be validly compelled to provide free parking to their customers, because requiring them to provide free parking space to their customers is beyond the scope of police powers. It unreasonably restricts the right to use property for business purposes and amounts to confiscation of property (Office of the Solicitor General v. Ayala Land, Inc., 600 SCRA 617).

Textbox

10.) The City of San Rafael passed an ordinance authorizing the City Mayor, assisted by the police,to remove all advertising signs displayed or exposed to public view in the main city street, for being offensive to sight or otherwise a nuisance. AM, whose advertising agency owns and rents out many of the billboards ordered removed by the City Mayor, claims that the City should pay for the destroyed billboards at their current market value since the City has appropriated them for the public purpose of city beautification. The Mayor refuses to pay, so AM is suing the City and the Mayor for damages arising from the taking of his property without due process nor just compensation. Will AM prosper? Reason briefly.

The suit of AM will not prosper. The removal of the billboards is not an exercise of the power of eminent domain but of police power (Churchill v. Rafferty, 32 Phil. 580). The abatement of a nuisance in the exercise of police power does not constitute taking of property and does not entitle the owner of the property involved to compensation. (Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343)

Textbox