Lawyerly

GR No. 218787

2015-12-08

VELASCO JR., J.

Nevertheless, the application of Sec. 58 of RA 9184 has to be qualified. It cannot, in all instances, be the proper remedy to question the rulings of the heads of procuring entities in procurement protests. As in the prior case of Roque v. COMELEC,[66] which similarly dealt with COMELEC procurement of OMRs the Court held that only a losing bidder would be aggrieved by, and ergo would have the personality to challenge, the head of the procuring entity's ruling in the protest. This is bolstered by the GPRA IRR, which fleshed out the provisions of RA 9184 thusly: RULE XVII - PROTEST MECHANISM

GR No. 205728

2015-01-21

DIOCESE OF BACOLOD v. COMELEC

LEONEN, J.

Thus, the doctrine of hierarchy of courts is not an iron-clad rule.[68] This court has "full discretionary power to take cognizance and assume jurisdiction [over] special civil actions for certiorari . . . filed directly with it for exceptionally compelling reasons[69] or if warranted by the nature of the issues clearly and specifically raised in the petition."[70] As correctly pointed out by petitioners,[71] we have provided exceptions to this doctrine: First, a direct resort to this court is allowed when there are genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed at the most immediate time. A direct resort to this court includes availing of the remedies of certiorari and prohibition to assail the constitutionality of actions of both legislative and executive branches of the government.[72]

GR No. 205033

2013-06-18

ROMEO G. JALOSJOS v. COMELEC

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Pertinently, it is observed that the import of Article 41 in relation to Article 30 of the RPC is more direct and specific in nature insofar as it deprives the candidate to run for elective office due to his conviction as compared to Section 40(a) of the LGC which broadly speaks of offenses involving moral turpitude and those punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment without any consideration of certain disqualifying effects to one's right to suffrage. Accordingly, Section 40(a) of the LGC should be considered as a law of general application and therefore, must yield to the more definitive RPC provisions in line with the principle of lex specialis derogat generali general legislation must give way to special legislation on the same subject, and generally is so interpreted as to embrace only cases in which the special provisions are not applicable. In other words, where two statutes are of equal theoretical application to a particular case, the one specially designed therefor should prevail.[32]

GR No. 201112

2012-10-23

ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA v. COMELEC

PERALTA, J.

Lastly, we need not further discuss the issues raised by movants on the alleged glitches of the subject PCOS machines, their compliance with the minimum system capabilities required by law, and the supposed abdication of the Comelec's exclusive power in the conduct of elections as these issues have been either thoroughly discussed in the assailed decision or in the earlier case of Roque, Jr. v. Commission on Elections.[62]

GR No. 201112

2012-06-13

ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA v. COMELEC

PERALTA, J.

Thus, in view of the compelling significance and transcending public importance of the issues raised by petitioners, the technicalities raised by respondents should not be allowed to stand in the way, if the ends of justice would not be subserved by a rigid adherence to the rules of procedure.[30]

GR No. 201112

2012-06-13

ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA v. COMELEC

PERALTA, J.

Now on the substantive issues. In order to achieve the modernization program of the Philippine Electoral System, which includes the automation of the counting, transmission and canvassing of votes for the May 2010 national and local elections with systems integration and over-all project management in a comprehensive and well-managed manner,[31] the Comelec entered into an AES contract with Smartmatic-TIM for the lease of goods and purchase of services under the contract, with option to purchase the goods.

GR No. 201112

2012-06-13

ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA v. COMELEC

PERALTA, J.

By then, the Certificate of Availability of Funds required under the Administrative Code of 1987[73] may be issued and the COMELEC can finalize the bidding documents[74] which should include the technical specification for (an improved) technology required for the automation of the 2013 elections. Thereafter, a pre-procurement conference will be conducted to review, among others, the criteria for eligibility and the readiness for the procurement.[75] Next, the invitation to bid is prepared and advertised to inform prospective bidders of the procurement. The invitation must, hence, be posted in the COMELEC office and its website for seven calendar days and published in a newspaper of general circulation.[76] This can take up some weeks in November 2012.

GR No. 201112

2012-06-13

ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA v. COMELEC

PERALTA, J.

In G.R. No. 201418, petitioners Tanggulang Demokrasya (Tan Dem), Inc., Evelyn L. Kilayko, Teresita D. Baltazar, Pilar L. Calderon and Elita T. Montilla pray that the Court annul Resolution No. 9376 and the March 30, 2012 Deed of Sale, and prohibit the Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM from implementing the same; and declare said Resolution and Deed of Sale invalid for having been issued and executed by the Comelec with grave abuse of discretion and for violating the provisions of R.A. 9184.[25]

GR No. 201112

2012-06-13

ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA v. COMELEC

PERALTA, J.

There can be no doubt that the coming 10 May 2010 [in this case, May 2013] elections is a matter of great public concern. On election day, the country's registered voters will come out to exercise the sacred right of suffrage. Not only is it an exercise that ensures the preservation of our democracy, the coming elections also embodies our people's last ounce of hope for a better future. It is the final opportunity, patiently awaited by our people, for the peaceful transition of power to the next chosen leaders of our country. If there is anything capable of directly affecting the lives of ordinary Filipinos so as to come within the ambit of a public concern, it is the coming elections, more so with the alarming turn of events that continue to unfold. The wanton wastage of public funds brought about by one bungled contract after another, in staggering amounts, is in itself a matter of grave public concern.[29]

GR No. 201112

2012-06-13

ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA v. COMELEC

PERALTA, J.

On March 6, 2012, the Comelec issued Resolution No. 9373[8] resolving to seriously consider exercising the OTP subject to certain conditions. On March 21, 2012, the Comelec issued Resolution No. 9376[9] resolving to exercise the OTP the PCOS and CCS hardware and software in accordance with the AES contract between the Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM in connection with the May 10, 2010 elections subject to the following conditions: (1) the warranties agreed upon in the AES contract shall be in full force and effect; (2) the original price for the hardware and software covered by the OTP as specified in the AES contract shall be maintained, excluding the cost of the 920 units of PCOS and related peripherals previously purchased for use in the 2010 special elections; and (3) all other services related to the 2013 AES shall be subject to public bidding. On March 29, 2012, the Comelec issued Resolution No. 9377[10] resolving to accept Smartmatic-TIM's offer to extend the period to exercise the OTP until March 31, 2012 and to authorize Chairman Brillantes to sign for and on behalf of the Comelec the Agreement on the Extension of the OTP Under the AES Contract[11] (Extension Agreement, for brevity). The aforesaid Extension Agreement was signed on March 30, 2012.[12] On even date, the Comelec issued Resolution No. 9378[13] resolving to approve the Deed of Sale between the Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM to purchase the latter's PCOS machines (hardware and software) to be used in the upcoming May 2013 elections and to authorize Chairman Brillantes to sign the Deed of Sale for and on behalf of the Comelec. The Deed of Sale[14] was forthwith executed.

GR No. 194139

2012-01-24

DOUGLAS R. CAGAS v. COMELEC

BERSAMIN, J.

Moreover, the petitioner urges that the protest be considered as a mere fishing expedition to be outrightly dismissed in light of the elections being held under an automated system. In support of his urging, he cites Roque, Jr. v. Commission on Elections,[22] where the Court took judicial notice of the accuracy and reliability of the PCOS machines and CCS computers, such that allegations of massive errors in the automated counting and canvassing had become insufficient as basis for the COMELEC to entertain or to give due course to defective election protests.[23] He submits that a protest like Bautista's cast doubt on the automated elections.

GR No. 163653

2011-07-19

CIR v. FILINVEST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

PEREZ, J.

On 13 January 1997, FLI requested a ruling from the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) to the effect that no gain or loss should be recognized in the aforesaid transfer of real properties. Acting on the request, the BIR issued Ruling No. S-34-046-97 dated 3 February 1997, finding that the exchange is among those contemplated under Section 34 (c) (2) of the old National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) [4] which provides that "(n)o gain or loss shall be recognized if property is transferred to a corporation by a person in exchange for a stock in such corporation of which as a result of such exchange said person, alone or together with others, not exceeding four (4) persons, gains control of said corporation." [5] With the BIR's reiteration of the foregoing ruling upon the 10 February 1997 request for clarification filed by FLI, [6] the latter, together with FDC and FAI, complied with all the requirements imposed in the ruling. [7]

GR No. 190529

2011-03-22

PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS BROTHERHOOD v. COMELEC

BRION, J.

Although we have recognized the validity of the automation of the May 10, 2010 elections in Roque, Jr. v. Comelec,[23] we stress that automation is not the end-all and be-all of an electoral process. An equally important aspect of a democratic electoral exercise is the right of free choice of the electorates on who shall govern them; the party-list system, in the words of Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Comelec,[24] affords them this choice, as it gives the marginalized and underrepresented sectors the opportunity to participate in governance. Wittingly or unwittingly, the Comelec took this freedom of choice away and effectively disenfranchised the members of the sector that PGBI sought to represent when it did not include PGBI in the list of qualified parties vying for a seat under the party-list system of representation. This is a consideration no less weighty than the automation of the election and cannot be simply disregarded on mere generalized allegations of automation difficulties.

GR No. 176657

2010-09-01

DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS v. FRANCO T. FALCON

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Although the direct filing of petitions for certiorari with the Supreme Court is discouraged when litigants may still resort to remedies with the lower courts, we have in the past overlooked the failure of a party to strictly adhere to the hierarchy of courts on highly meritorious grounds. Most recently, we relaxed the rule on court hierarchy in the case of Roque, Jr. v. Commission on Elections,[55] wherein we held: The policy on the hierarchy of courts, which petitioners indeed failed to observe, is not an iron-clad rule. For indeed the Court has full discretionary power to take cognizance and assume jurisdiction of special civil actions for certiorari and mandamus filed directly with it for exceptionally compelling reasons or if warranted by the nature of the issues clearly and specifically raised in the petition.[56] (Emphases ours.)

	GR No. 218787 2015-12-08	LEO Y. QUERUBIN v. COMELEC EN BANC VELASCO JR., J.
Nevertheless, the application of Sec. 58 of RA 9184 has to be qualified. It cannot, in all instances, be the proper remedy to question the rulings of the heads of procuring entities in procurement protests. As in the prior case of Roque v. COMELEC,[66] which similarly dealt with COMELEC procurement of OMRs the Court held that only a losing bidder would be aggrieved by, and ergo would have the personality to challenge, the head of the procuring entity's ruling in the protest. This is bolstered by the GPRA IRR, which fleshed out the provisions of RA 9184 thusly: RULE XVII - PROTEST MECHANISM
	GR No. 205728 2015-01-21	DIOCESE OF BACOLOD v. COMELEC LEONEN, J.
Thus, the doctrine of hierarchy of courts is not an iron-clad rule.[68] This court has "full discretionary power to take cognizance and assume jurisdiction [over] special civil actions for certiorari . . . filed directly with it for exceptionally compelling reasons[69] or if warranted by the nature of the issues clearly and specifically raised in the petition."[70] As correctly pointed out by petitioners,[71] we have provided exceptions to this doctrine: First, a direct resort to this court is allowed when there are genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed at the most immediate time. A direct resort to this court includes availing of the remedies of certiorari and prohibition to assail the constitutionality of actions of both legislative and executive branches of the government.[72]
	GR No. 205033 2013-06-18	ROMEO G. JALOSJOS v. COMELEC PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Pertinently, it is observed that the import of Article 41 in relation to Article 30 of the RPC is more direct and specific in nature insofar as it deprives the candidate to run for elective office due to his conviction as compared to Section 40(a) of the LGC which broadly speaks of offenses involving moral turpitude and those punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment without any consideration of certain disqualifying effects to one's right to suffrage. Accordingly, Section 40(a) of the LGC should be considered as a law of general application and therefore, must yield to the more definitive RPC provisions in line with the principle of lex specialis derogat generali general legislation must give way to special legislation on the same subject, and generally is so interpreted as to embrace only cases in which the special provisions are not applicable. In other words, where two statutes are of equal theoretical application to a particular case, the one specially designed therefor should prevail.[32]
	GR No. 201112 2012-10-23	ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
Lastly, we need not further discuss the issues raised by movants on the alleged glitches of the subject PCOS machines, their compliance with the minimum system capabilities required by law, and the supposed abdication of the Comelec's exclusive power in the conduct of elections as these issues have been either thoroughly discussed in the assailed decision or in the earlier case of Roque, Jr. v. Commission on Elections.[62]
	GR No. 201112 2012-06-13	ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
Thus, in view of the compelling significance and transcending public importance of the issues raised by petitioners, the technicalities raised by respondents should not be allowed to stand in the way, if the ends of justice would not be subserved by a rigid adherence to the rules of procedure.[30]
	GR No. 201112 2012-06-13	ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
Now on the substantive issues. In order to achieve the modernization program of the Philippine Electoral System, which includes the automation of the counting, transmission and canvassing of votes for the May 2010 national and local elections with systems integration and over-all project management in a comprehensive and well-managed manner,[31] the Comelec entered into an AES contract with Smartmatic-TIM for the lease of goods and purchase of services under the contract, with option to purchase the goods.
	GR No. 201112 2012-06-13	ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
By then, the Certificate of Availability of Funds required under the Administrative Code of 1987[73] may be issued and the COMELEC can finalize the bidding documents[74] which should include the technical specification for (an improved) technology required for the automation of the 2013 elections. Thereafter, a pre-procurement conference will be conducted to review, among others, the criteria for eligibility and the readiness for the procurement.[75] Next, the invitation to bid is prepared and advertised to inform prospective bidders of the procurement. The invitation must, hence, be posted in the COMELEC office and its website for seven calendar days and published in a newspaper of general circulation.[76] This can take up some weeks in November 2012.
	GR No. 201112 2012-06-13	ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
In G.R. No. 201418, petitioners Tanggulang Demokrasya (Tan Dem), Inc., Evelyn L. Kilayko, Teresita D. Baltazar, Pilar L. Calderon and Elita T. Montilla pray that the Court annul Resolution No. 9376 and the March 30, 2012 Deed of Sale, and prohibit the Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM from implementing the same; and declare said Resolution and Deed of Sale invalid for having been issued and executed by the Comelec with grave abuse of discretion and for violating the provisions of R.A. 9184.[25]
	GR No. 201112 2012-06-13	ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
There can be no doubt that the coming 10 May 2010 [in this case, May 2013] elections is a matter of great public concern. On election day, the country's registered voters will come out to exercise the sacred right of suffrage. Not only is it an exercise that ensures the preservation of our democracy, the coming elections also embodies our people's last ounce of hope for a better future. It is the final opportunity, patiently awaited by our people, for the peaceful transition of power to the next chosen leaders of our country. If there is anything capable of directly affecting the lives of ordinary Filipinos so as to come within the ambit of a public concern, it is the coming elections, more so with the alarming turn of events that continue to unfold. The wanton wastage of public funds brought about by one bungled contract after another, in staggering amounts, is in itself a matter of grave public concern.[29]
	GR No. 201112 2012-06-13	ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
On March 6, 2012, the Comelec issued Resolution No. 9373[8] resolving to seriously consider exercising the OTP subject to certain conditions. On March 21, 2012, the Comelec issued Resolution No. 9376[9] resolving to exercise the OTP the PCOS and CCS hardware and software in accordance with the AES contract between the Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM in connection with the May 10, 2010 elections subject to the following conditions: (1) the warranties agreed upon in the AES contract shall be in full force and effect; (2) the original price for the hardware and software covered by the OTP as specified in the AES contract shall be maintained, excluding the cost of the 920 units of PCOS and related peripherals previously purchased for use in the 2010 special elections; and (3) all other services related to the 2013 AES shall be subject to public bidding. On March 29, 2012, the Comelec issued Resolution No. 9377[10] resolving to accept Smartmatic-TIM's offer to extend the period to exercise the OTP until March 31, 2012 and to authorize Chairman Brillantes to sign for and on behalf of the Comelec the Agreement on the Extension of the OTP Under the AES Contract[11] (Extension Agreement, for brevity). The aforesaid Extension Agreement was signed on March 30, 2012.[12] On even date, the Comelec issued Resolution No. 9378[13] resolving to approve the Deed of Sale between the Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM to purchase the latter's PCOS machines (hardware and software) to be used in the upcoming May 2013 elections and to authorize Chairman Brillantes to sign the Deed of Sale for and on behalf of the Comelec. The Deed of Sale[14] was forthwith executed.
	GR No. 194139 2012-01-24	DOUGLAS R. CAGAS v. COMELEC BERSAMIN, J.
Moreover, the petitioner urges that the protest be considered as a mere fishing expedition to be outrightly dismissed in light of the elections being held under an automated system. In support of his urging, he cites Roque, Jr. v. Commission on Elections,[22] where the Court took judicial notice of the accuracy and reliability of the PCOS machines and CCS computers, such that allegations of massive errors in the automated counting and canvassing had become insufficient as basis for the COMELEC to entertain or to give due course to defective election protests.[23] He submits that a protest like Bautista's cast doubt on the automated elections.
	GR No. 163653 2011-07-19	CIR v. FILINVEST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PEREZ, J.
On 13 January 1997, FLI requested a ruling from the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) to the effect that no gain or loss should be recognized in the aforesaid transfer of real properties. Acting on the request, the BIR issued Ruling No. S-34-046-97 dated 3 February 1997, finding that the exchange is among those contemplated under Section 34 (c) (2) of the old National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) [4] which provides that "(n)o gain or loss shall be recognized if property is transferred to a corporation by a person in exchange for a stock in such corporation of which as a result of such exchange said person, alone or together with others, not exceeding four (4) persons, gains control of said corporation." [5] With the BIR's reiteration of the foregoing ruling upon the 10 February 1997 request for clarification filed by FLI, [6] the latter, together with FDC and FAI, complied with all the requirements imposed in the ruling. [7]
	GR No. 190529 2011-03-22	PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS BROTHERHOOD v. COMELEC BRION, J.
Although we have recognized the validity of the automation of the May 10, 2010 elections in Roque, Jr. v. Comelec,[23] we stress that automation is not the end-all and be-all of an electoral process. An equally important aspect of a democratic electoral exercise is the right of free choice of the electorates on who shall govern them; the party-list system, in the words of Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Comelec,[24] affords them this choice, as it gives the marginalized and underrepresented sectors the opportunity to participate in governance. Wittingly or unwittingly, the Comelec took this freedom of choice away and effectively disenfranchised the members of the sector that PGBI sought to represent when it did not include PGBI in the list of qualified parties vying for a seat under the party-list system of representation. This is a consideration no less weighty than the automation of the election and cannot be simply disregarded on mere generalized allegations of automation difficulties.
	GR No. 176657 2010-09-01	DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS v. FRANCO T. FALCON LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Although the direct filing of petitions for certiorari with the Supreme Court is discouraged when litigants may still resort to remedies with the lower courts, we have in the past overlooked the failure of a party to strictly adhere to the hierarchy of courts on highly meritorious grounds. Most recently, we relaxed the rule on court hierarchy in the case of Roque, Jr. v. Commission on Elections,[55] wherein we held: The policy on the hierarchy of courts, which petitioners indeed failed to observe, is not an iron-clad rule. For indeed the Court has full discretionary power to take cognizance and assume jurisdiction of special civil actions for certiorari and mandamus filed directly with it for exceptionally compelling reasons or if warranted by the nature of the issues clearly and specifically raised in the petition.[56] (Emphases ours.)

H. HARRY L. ROQUE v. COMELEC