Political Law>>Requisites of Judicial Review

Political Law>>Admin Law>>Valid Delegation of Powers

Political Law>>Inherent Powers of the State>>Exercise of Police Power

KILUSANG MAYO UNO, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GENERAL ROGELIO

SOLUTA; REP. FERNANDO HICAP FOR HIMSELF AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
ANAKPAWIS PARTY-LIST; CENTER FOR TRADE UNION AND HUMAN RIGHTS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DAISY ARAGO; JOSELITO USTAREZ
AND SALVADOR CARRANZA, FOR THEMSELVES AND IN REPRESENTATION OF THE
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS-KMU; NENITA GONZAGA, PRESCILA A.
MANIQUIZ, REDEN ALCANTARA, PETITIONERS,

v.

HON. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., SOCIAL
SECURITY COMMISSION, SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, AND EMILIO S. DE QUIROS,
JR., RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 210500, April 02, 2019

Facts
This resolves a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition,praying that a temporary restraining
order and/or writ of preliminary injunction be issued to annul the Social Security System
premium hike embodied in the following issuances:

(1) Resolution No. 262-s, 2013, dated April 19, 2013, of the Social Security Commission
(SSC) providing for an increase in the SSS members’ contribution rate from 10.4% to 11%
and the maximum monthly salary credit from P15,000 to P16,000 subject to the approval of
the President of the Philippines;

(2) Resolution No. 711-s. 2013, dated September 20, 2013, of the SSC, approving, among
others, the foregoing increases; and

(3) Circular No. 2013-010, dated October 2, 2013, issued by the SSS, through its President
and Chief Executive Officer Emilio S. De Quiros, Jr., providing for the revised schedule of
contributions that would be in effect in January 2014. Per the circular, the employer and
employee shall equally shoulder the 0.6% increase in contributions. Thus, the employer would
pay a contribution rate of 7.37% (from 7.07%); the employee, 3.63% (from 3.33%).

Issues

1. Whether the Court can exercise its power of judicial review;

2. whether there was valid delegation of per to respondent SSS pertaining the increase in
contribution rate and maximum monthly salary credit

3. Whether there was unlawful exercise of police power

Ruling

1. No. The requisites for the exercise of the power of judicial review: (1) there must be an
actual case or justiciable controversy before this Court; (2) the question before this Court
must be ripe for adjudication; (3) the person challenging the act must be a proper party; and
(4) the issue of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity and must be the
very  litis mota of the case.
As to the first requisite, the Court notes that petitioners failed to prove how the assailed
issuances violated workers' constitutional rights such that it would warrant a judicial review.
Petitioners cannot merely cite and rely on the Constitution without specifying how these rights
translate to being legally entitled to a fixed amount and proportion of Social Security System
contributions.

As to the second requisite, the failure to exhaust administrative remedies affects the
ripeness to adjudicate the constitutionality of a governmental act, which in turn affects the
existence of the need for an actual case or controversy for the courts to exercise their power
of judicial review. Here, it is clear that petitioners failed to exhaust their administrative
remedies.

Petitioners allege that they "have no appeal nor any plain, speedy[,] and adequate remedy
under the ordinary course of law except through the instant Petition.

However, Sections 4 and 5 of the Social Security Act are clear that the Social Security
Commission has jurisdiction over any dispute arising from the law regarding coverage,
benefits, contributions, and penalties. The law further provides that the aggrieved party must
first exhaust all administrative remedies available before seeking review from the courts.
petitioners should have first filed their case before respondent Social Security Commission.

As to the third requisite, not all petitioners have shown the requisite legal standing to bring
the case before this Court. Petitioners Joselito Ustarez, Salvador T. Carranza, Nenita
Gonzaga, Prescila A. Maniquiz, Reden R. Alcantara, and Anakpawis Party-List
Representative Fernando Hicap, for himself, are Social Security System members who stand
to suffer direct and material injury from the assailed issuances' enforcement. They are, thus,
clothed with legal personality to assail the imposed increase in contribution rates and
maximum monthly salary credit.

On the other hand, petitioners Kilusang Mayo Uno, Anakpawis Party-List, Center for Trade
Union and Human Rights, and National Federation of Labor Unions-Kilusang Mayo Uno all
failed to show how they will suffer direct and material injury from the enforcement of the
assailed issuances.

2. Yes. The "delegation of legislative power to various specialized administrative agencies is

allowed in the face of increasing complexity of modern life." Petitioners are putting in issue
not only the validity of the exercise of the delegated power, but also the validity of the
delegation itself. They are, thus, collaterally attacking the validity of the Social Security Act's
provisions.

Collateral attacks on a presumably valid law are not allowed. Unless a law, rule, or act is
annulled in a direct proceeding, it is presumed valid.

Further, what are needed for a valid delegation are: (1) the completeness of the statute
making the delegation; and (2) the presence of a sufficient standard. Not only is the Social
Security Act complete in its terms; it also contains a sufficient standard for the Social Security
Commission to fix the monthly contribution rate and the minimum and maximum monthly
salary credits as provided in Sec 18 of the said Act.

3. No. To be a valid exercise of police power, there must be a lawful subject and the power is
exercised through lawful means. The second requisite requires a reasonable relation between
the purpose and the means.

Using the parameters above, we hold that the increases reflected in the issuances of
respondents are reasonably necessary to observe the constitutional mandate of promoting
social justice under the Social Security Act. The public interest involved here refers to the
State's goal of establishing, developing, promoting, and perfecting a sound and viable tax-
exempt social security system. To achieve this, the Social Security System and the Social
Security Commission are empowered to adjust from time to time the contribution rate and the
monthly salary credits. Given the past increases since the inception of the law, the
contribution rate increase of 0.6% applied to the corresponding monthly salary credit does not
scream of unreasonableness or injustice.
Political Law>>Admin Law>>Admin Code>>Jurisdiction of COA

ADELAIDO ORIONDO, TEODORO M. HERNANDEZ, RENATO L. BASCO, CARMEN

MERINO, AND REYNALDO SALVADOR, PETITIONERS,
v.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 211293, June 04, 2019

Facts
Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA) Board of Directors adopted a Resolution approving the
creation of a foundation for the development of Corregidor. The Corregidor Foundation INC.
was incorporated under Securities and Exchange Commission.PTA executed a Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) with the said foundation and agreed to release its operating funds based
on its budget for its approval and said foundation will also submit a quarterly report on the
receipts and disbursement of PTA funds and shall deposit all the revenues collected in a
distinct and separate account in the name of Corregidor, and the disposition of the funds at
the sole discretion of the PTA. Also as additional stipulations, the disbursement of PTA-funds
by Corregidor shall be subject of Internal Auditor of PTA and Commission on Audit.Thereafter
the audit team noted that the petitioners, former officers of PTA concurrently rendering
service to the foundation received gifts and honoraria which is contrary to Department of
Budget Management Circular No. 2003-5. Thus, the COA issued a notice of disallowance to
the said petitioners. The petitioners contended that Corregidor foundation is a private
corporation created by the Corporation code, thus cannot be audited by the COA.The
Adjudication Settlement Board held that the foundation is a government-owned controlled
corporation (GOCC) and under the audit powers of the COA, and the same is a non-stock
corporation which receives funds from the government through the PTA. However, the
petitioners insist that the Corregidor Foundation is not a GOCC because the same is neither
organized as a stock corporation nor created by a special law. It is a private corporation which
assets are allegedly exclusive property

Issue
Whether The Corregidor Foundation Inc is considered as a GOCC and comes under the audit
jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit

Ruling
Yes. The Constitution, the Administrative Code of 1987, and the Government Auditing Code
of the Philippines define the powers of the Commission on Audit. Particularly, it is found in
Article IX-D, Section 2 of the Constitution, Article IX-D, Section 2(1) is found in Book V, Title I,
Subtitle B, Chapter 4, Section 11 of the Administrative Code and Sec 26 of the The
Government Auditing Code of the Philippines.

Based on the foregoing provisions, the Commission on Audit generally has audit jurisdiction
over public entities. In the Administrative Code's Introductory Provisions, the Commission on
Audit is even allowed to categorize government-owned or controlled corporations for
purposes of the exercise and discharge of its powers, functions, and responsibilities with
respect to such corporations.

The extent of the Commission on Audit's audit authority even extends to non-governmental
entities that receive subsidy or equity from or through the government.

Therefore, it is absurd for petitioners to challenge the competency of the Commission on

Audit to determine whether or not an entity is a government-owned or controlled corporation.
Political Law>>Bill of Rights>>Chain of Custody>>Unless an unbroken chain of custody over
items allegedly seized during drug operations is established, the constitutional right to be
presumed innocent prevails. Ultimately, doubt in the corpus delicti—the drugs and drug
paraphernalia that were the alleged objects of a drug offense—impels the acquittal of an
accused.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. LARRY SULTAN Y ALMADA,

ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

G.R. No. 225210, August 07, 2019

Facts

The case is a challenge of he Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming in toto the Decision
of the Regional Trial Court, finding accused-appellant Larry Sultan y Almad. (Sultan) guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs) and 11
(illegal possession of dangerous drugs) of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The following circustances during the buy-
bust are crucial:

The prosecution presented three (3) witnesses: (1) Police

Superintendent Santiago Y. Rapiz (Superintendent Rapiz); (2) Police
Officer 2 Tony D. Hechanova (PO2 Hechanova); and (3) Police Chief
Inspector Paul Jerome S. Puentespina (Chief Inspector Puentespina).
For the defense, Sultan and Marian M. Batungara (Batungara) took the
witness stand.

According to the prosecution, at around 2:00 p.m. on December 6,

2012, Superintendent Rapiz was informed that a certain Larry Sultan
was engaging in the illegal trade of shabu. Accordingly, he assembled a
buy-bust team, designating PO2 Hechanova as the poseur-buyer. PO2
Hechanova received a marked P1,000.00 bill for the transaction

Later that day, PO2 Hechanova and the confidential asset rode a jeep to
the Sea Breeze Hotel on San Juan Street, Bacolod City.

Upon arrival, they approached Sultan, who was standing at the hotel's
main door. The confidential asset inquired if Sultan has P1,000.00 worth
of shabu. Confirming that he had it, Sultan handed PO2 Hechanova an
elongated sachet containing white crystalline substance in exchange for
the marked money. As soon as the transaction occurred, the asset
placed a missed call to the team, which then rushed to the scene.
Meanwhile, PO2 Hechanova introduced himself as a police officer and
arrested Sultan.

Upon frisking Sultan, PO2 Hechanova recovered three (3) plastic

sachets of suspected shabu in his left pocket. He then informed Sultan
of the nature and cause of his arrest and apprised him of his
constitutional rights.

Sultan was then brought to the barangay hall of Barangay 12, Bacolod
City where PO2 Hechanova marked the plastic sachets. The inventory
and photographing of the seized items were made in the presence of
Punong Barangay Demapanag and Kagawad Gomez.

Subsequently, PO2 Hechanova requested a laboratory examination of

the seized sachets' contents at the Philippine National Police Crime
 Laboratory Office Six, Camp Montelibano, Bacolod City. PO2 Edwin
Albarico (PO2 Albarico) received the specimen, after which he gave it to
Chief Inspector Puentespina who examined the seized items, which
tested positive for shabu.

Testifying in his defense, Sultan denied possessing and selling shabu.

He claimed that at around 2:00 p.m. on December 6, 2012, he was
booking a room with Batungara at the Sea Breeze Hotel when he
received a call from a friend, Erwin Elibaldo (Elibaldo). When Elibaldo
allegedly expressed his desire to pay his debt, Sultan arranged for their
meeting in the hotel. A few minutes later, Elibaldo arrived with two (2)
strangers, whom Sultan later came to know as police officers. They
approached Sultan, took his sling bag, and arrested him.

Then, the officers brought him to Superintendent Rapiz's office at a

certain JMP Building. Superintendent Rapiz allegedly talked about
bargaining, but it did not make sense to Sultan. Afterwards, he was
brought to a barangay hall, where the police officers opened his sling
bag and marked its contents, which, according to Sultan, did not include
shabu.

Issue

Whether the chain of custody was broken and justifies the acquittal of the accused

Ruling

Yes. In both cases, the corpus delicti is the illicit drug seized from the accused.Section 21 of
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640, outlines
the requirements for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered
drugs and/or drug paraphernalia. Noncompliance with Section 21 engenders doubt on the
integrity of the corpus delicti. When the corpus delicti is cast in doubt, an accused's guilt is
also cast in doubt—warranting acquittal.

Because the buy-bust operation occurred in 2012, prior to Section 21's amendment, the
original text of the law applies. Yet, operating under either version still leads this Court to the
same ruling in this case: the prosecution failed to show the police officers' strict compliance
with Section 21. Two (2) barangay officials witnessed the marking, inventorying, and
photographing of the seized items. Beyond that, no representatives from both the media and
the Department of Justice were present.

The required witnesses must not only be present during the inventorying and photographing,
but as early as the seizure of items. Moreover, Section 21 mandates the conduct of inventory
and taking of photographs "immediately after seizure and confiscation," which means that
these must be done at the place of the arrest. 

Here, the prosecution has never bothered to prove, let alone plead, any situation to excuse
the police enforcers deviation from the law's simple requirements. This casts doubt on the
integrity of the items supposedly seized and, ultimately, on the commission of the crimes.

The chain of custody rule removes unnecessary doubts on the identity of the dangerous
drugs presented in court. Officers who come into possession of seized drugs must show how
they handled and preserved the integrity of the seized drugs while in their custody.