Political Law Bar Q and A

Political Law Bar Questions and Answers

Bar Q and A #6

1.) Greenpeas is an ideology-based political party fighting for environmental causes. It decided to participate under the party-list system. When the election results came in, it only obtained 1.99 percent of the votes cast under the party-list system. Bluebean, a political observer, claimed that Greenpeas is not entitled to any seat since it failed to obtain at least 2% of the votes. Moreover, since it does not represent any of the marginalized and underrepresented sectors of society, Greenpeas is not entitled to participate under the party-list system. How valid are the observations of Bluebean?

The claim of Bluebean that Greenpeas is not entitled to a seal under the party-list-system because it obtained only 1.99 percent of the votes cast under the party-list-system is not correct. The provision in Section5(2) Article VI of the Constitution provides that the party-list representatives shall constitute twenty percent (20%) of the total number of the members of the house of Representatives is mandatory, after the parties receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes case for the party-list system have been allocated one seat, the remaining seats should be allocated among the parties by the proportional percentage of the votes received by each party as against the total party-list votes. (Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency v. COMELEC, 586 SCRA 211, 2009)

The claim of Bluebean that Greenpeas is not entitled to participate in the party-list elections because it does not represent any marginalized and underrepresented sectors of society is not correct. It is enough that its principal advocacy pertains to the special interest of its sector. (Atong Panglaum, Inc. v. COMELEC, 694 SCRA 477, 2013)

Textbox

2.) The Partido ng Mapagkakatiwalaang Pilipino (PMP) is a major political party which has participated in every election since the enactment of the 1987 Constitution. It has fielded candidates mostly for legislative district elections. In fact, a number of its members were elected, and are actually serving, in the House of Representatives. In the coming 2016 elections, the PMP leadership intends to join the party-list system. Can PMP join the party- list system without violating the Constitution and Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7941?

YES. As for political parties, they may participate in the party-list race by registering under the party-list system and no longer field congressional candidates. These parties, if they field congressional candidates, however, are not barred from participating in the party-list elections; what they need to do is register their sectoral wing or party under the party-list system.

This sectoral wing shall be considered an “independent sectoral party” linked to a political party through a coalition. (Atong Paglaum vs COMELEC, April 2, 2013)

Textbox

3.) State the rule making it incompatible for members of Congress to hold offices or employment in the government.

Section 13, Article VII of the Constitution, which prohibits Members of Congress from holding another office during their term without forfeiting their seat, does not distinguish between government corporations with original charters and their subsidiaries, because the prohibition applies to both.

Textbox

4.) Victor Ahmad was born on December 16, 1972 of a Filipino mother and an alien father. Under the law of his father's country, his mother did not acquire his father's citizenship. Victor consults you on December 21, 1993 and informs you of his intention to run for Congress in the 1995 elections. Is he qualified to run? What advice would you give him? Would your answer be the same if he had seen and consulted you on December 16, 1991 and informed you of his desire to run for Congress in the 1992 elections? Discuss your answer.

NO, Victor Ahmad is not qualified to run for Congress in the 1995 elections. Under Section 6, Article VI of the Constitution, a member of the House of Representatives must be at least twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of the election. Since he will be less than twenty-five (25) years of age in 1995, Victor Ahmad is not qualified to run.

Under Section 2, Article IV of the Constitution, to be deemed a natural-born citizen, Victor Ahmad must elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. I shall advise him to elect Philippine citizenship if he has not yet done so, and to wait until the 1998 elections. My answer will be the same if he consulted me in 1991 and informed me of his desire to run in the 1992 elections.

Textbox

5.) During his third term, "A", a Member of the House of Representatives, was suspended from office for a period of 60 days by his colleagues upon a vote of two- thirds of all the Members of the House. In the next succeeding election, he filed his certificate of candidacy for the same position. "B", the opposing candidate, filed an action for disqualification of "A" on the ground that the latter's, candidacy violated Section 7. Article VI of the Constitution which provides that no Member of the House of Representatives shall serve for more than three consecutive terms. "A" answered that he was not barred from running again for that position because his service was interrupted by his 60-day suspension which was involuntary. Can 'A', legally continue with his candidacy or is he already barred? Why?

"A" cannot legally continue with his candidacy. He was elected as Member of the House of Representatives for a third term. This term should be included in the computation of the term limits, even if "A" did not serve for a full term. (Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. n, p. 592.) He remained a Member of the House of Representatives even if he was suspended.

Textbox

6.) JAR faces a dilemma: should he accept a Cabinet appointment now or run later for Senator? Having succeeded in law practice as well as prospered in private business where he and his wife have substantial investments, he now contemplates public service but without losing the flexibility to engage in corporate affairs or participate in professional activities within ethical bounds. Taking into account the prohibitions and inhibitions of public office whether as Senator or Secretary, he turns to you for advice to resolve his dilemma. What is your advice? Explain briefly.

I shall advise JAR to run for Senator. As Senator, he can retain his investments in his business, although he must make a full disclosure of his business and financial interests and notify the Senate of a potential conflict of interest if he authors a bill. (Section 12, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.) He can continue practicing law, but he cannot personally appear as counsel before any court of justice, the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi- judicial and other administrative bodies. (Sec. 14, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution)

As a member of the Cabinet, JAR cannot directly or indirectly practice law or participate in any business. He will have to divest himself of his investments in his business (Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution). In fact, the Constitutional prohibition imposed on members of the Cabinet covers both public and private office or employment. (Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317, 199I)

Textbox

7.) Congresswoman A is a co-owner of an industrial estate in Sta. Rosa, Laguna which she had declared in her Statement of Assets and Liabilities. A member of her political party authored a bill which would provide a 5-year development plan for all industrial estates in the Southern Tagalog Region to attract investors. The plan included an appropriation of 2 billion pesos for construction of roads around the estates. When the bill finally became law, a civil society watchdog questioned the constitutionality of the law as it obviously benefitted Congresswoman A's industrial estate. Decide' with reasons.

The law is constitutional. Sec. 12, Article VI of the Constitution does not prohibit the enactment of a law which will benefit the business interests of a member of the Senate or the House of Representatives. It only requires that if the member of Congress whose business interests will be benefited by the law is the one who will file the bill, he should notify the House concerned of the potential conflict of interest.

Textbox

8.) In the May 2013 elections, the Allied Workers’ Group of the Philippines (AWGP), representing land-based and sea-based workers in the Philippines and overseas, won in the party list congressional elections. Atty. Abling, a labor lawyer, is its nominee. As part of the party’s advocacy and services, Congressman Abling engages in labor counseling, particularly for local workers with claims against their employers and for those who need representation in collective bargaining negotiations with employers. When labor cases arise, AWGP enters its appearance in representation of the workers and the Congressman makes it a point to be there to accompany the workers, although a retained counsel also formally enters his appearance and is invariably there. Congressman Abling largely takes a passive role in the proceedings although he occasionally speaks to supplement the retained counsel’s statements. It is otherwise in CBA negotiations where he actively participates. Management lawyers, feeling aggrieved that a congressman should not actively participate before labor tribunals and before employers because of the influence a congressman can wield, filed a disbarment case against the Congressman before the Supreme Court for his violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and for breach of trust, in relation particularly with the prohibitions on legislators under the Constitution. Is the cited ground for disbarment meritorious?

Being a congressman, Atty. Abling is disqualified under Article VI, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution from personally appearing as counsel before quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies handling labor cases constitutes personal appearance before them (Puyat v. De Guzman, G.R. No. L-5122, 1982, 1135 SCRA 33). His involvement in collective bargaining, negotiations also involves practice of law, because he is making use of his legal knowledge for the benefit of others (Cayetano v. Monsod, G.R. No. 100113, September 3, 1991, 201 SCRA 210). The Bureau of Labor Relations is involved in collective bargaining negotiations. (Article 250 of Labor Code)

Atty. Abling should not be disbarred but should be merely suspended from the practice of law. Suspension is the appropriate penalty for involvement in the unlawful practice of law (Tapay v. Bancolo, A.C. No. 9604, March 20, 2013, 694 SCRA 1)

Textbox

9.) Simeon Valera was formerly a Provincial Governor who ran and won as a Member of the House of Representatives for the Second Congressional District of lloilo. For violation of Section 3 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No.3019), as amended, allegedly committed when he was still a Provincial Governor, a criminal complaint was filed against him before the Office of the Ombudsman for which, upon a finding of probable cause, a criminal case was filed with the Sandiganbayan. During the course of trial, the Sandiganbayan issued an order of preventive suspension for 90 days against him. Representative Valera questioned the validity of the Sandiganbayan order on the ground that, under Article VI, Section 16(3) of the Constitution, he can be suspended only by the House of Representatives and that the criminal case against him did not arise from his actuations as a member of the House of Representatives. Is Representative Valera's contention correct? Why?

The contention of Representative Valera is not correct As held in Santiago v. Sandiganbayan, 356 SCRA 636, the suspension contemplated in Article VI, Section 16(3) of the Constitution is a punishment that is imposed by the Senate or House of Representatives upon an erring member, it is distinct from the suspension under Section 13 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which is not a penalty but a preventive measure. Since Section 13 of the Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices Act does not state that the public officer must be suspended only in the office where he is alleged to have committed the acts which he has been charged, it applies to any office which he may be holding.

Textbox

10.) In an election case, the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal rendered a decision upholding the election protest of protestant A, a member of the Freedom Party, against protestee B, a member of the Federal Party. The deciding vote in favor of A was cast by Representative X, a member of the Federal Party. For having voted against his party mate, Representative X was removed by Resolution of the House of Representatives, at the instance of his party (the Federal Party), from membership in the HRET. Representative X protested his removal on the ground that he voted on the basis of the evidence presented and contended that he had security of tenure as a HRET Member and that he cannot be removed except for a valid cause. With whose contention do you agree, that of the Federal Party or that of Representative X? Why?

I agree with the contention of Representative X. As held in Bondoc v. Pineda, 201 SCRA 792, the members of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal are entitled to security of tenure like members of the judiciary. Membership in it may not be terminated except for a just cause. Disloyalty to party is not a valid ground for the expulsion of a member of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. Its members must discharge their functions with impartiality and independence from the political party to which they belong.

Textbox