ARATUC VS COMELEC GR Nos.

49705-09 8 February 1979

FACTS

On April 7, 1978, election for the position of Representative to the Batasang Pambansa was held throughout the Philippines.
Aratuc sought the suspension of the canvass then being undertaken by Regional Board of Canvassers in Cotabato City and in
which, the returns in 1,966 out of 4,107 voting centers in the whole region had already been canvassed showing partial
results. A Supervening Panel headed by Commissioner of Election Hon. Venancio S. Duque had conducted the hearings of the
complaints of the petitioners therein of the alleged irregularities in the election records of the mentioned provinces. In order
for the Commission to decide properly, it will have to go deep into the examination of the voting records and registration
records and it will have to interview and get statements from persons under oath from the area to determine whether actual
voting took place. On July 11, 1978, the Regional Board of Canvassers issued a resolution, over the objection of the Konsensiya
ng Bayan (KB) candidates, declaring all the eight Kilusan ng Bagong Lipunan (KBL) candidates elected. Appeal was taken by the
KB candidates to the Comelec. On January 13, 1979, the Comelec issued its questioned resolution declaring seven KBL
candidates and one KB candidate as having obtained the first eight places, and ordering the Regional Board of Canvassers to
proclaim the winning candidates. The KB candidates interposed the present petition.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Comelec has committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction

HELD

No. In regard to the jurisdictional and due process points raised by herein petitioner, it is of decisive importance to bear in
mind that under Section 168 of the Revised Election Code of 1978, "the Commission (on Elections) shall have direct control
and supervision on over the board of canvassers" and that relatedly, Section 175 of the same Code provides that it "shall be
the sole judge of all pre- proclamation controversies." While nominally, the procedure of bringing to the Commission
objections to the actuations of boards of canvassers has been quite loosely referred to in certain quarters, even by the
Commission and by this Court, such as in the guidelines of May 23, 1978 quoted earlier in this opinion, as an appeal, the fact
of the matter is that the authority of the Commission in reviewing such actuations does not spring from any appellate
jurisdiction conferred by any specific provision of law, for there is none such provision anywhere in the Election Code, but
from the plenary prerogative of direct control and supervision endowed to it by the above-quoted provisions of Section 168.
And in administrative law, it is a too well settled postulate to need any supporting citation here, that a superior body or office
having supervision and control over another may do directly what the latter is supposed to do or ought to have done.

G.R. No. 102976 October 25, 1995 Iron and Steel Authority vs. CA

Doctrine:

When the statutory term of a non-incorporated agency expires, the powers, duties and functions as well as the assets and
liabilities of that agency revert back to, and are re-assumed by, the Republic.
FACTS:

PD 272 created the Iron and Steel Authority (ISA) in order to develop the iron and steel industry of the Philippines. ISA was
given the power to initiate expropriation of land for the use of the state.

Maria Cristina Fertilizer (MCFC) had lands in Iligan which were to be expropriated in favor of the government. MCFC refused
to accept the offer, so a trial ensued. During the course of the trial, the statutory term of ISA expired. MCFC contended that
because of the expiration, ISA no longer retained juridical personality. MCFC filed a motion to dismiss. The motion to was
granted. ISA filed a motion for reconsideration. ISA showed, as evidence, a Letter of Instruction (LOI) from the President
instructing thesolicitor general to continue with the expropriation proceedings. This was also denied.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Republic of the Philippines is entitled to be substituted for ISA in view of the expiration of ISA's term

HELD:

YES. Under the Rules of Court, only natural or juridical persons or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action.
ISA was vested with some of the powers or attributes normally associated with juridical personality. There is no provision in
the law recognizing ISA as juridical personality separate and distinct from that of the Government. ISA is properly regarded as
an agent or delegate of the Republic.

When the statutory term of a non-incorporated agency expires, the powers, duties and functions as well as the assets and
liabilities of that agency revert back to, and are re-assumed by, the Republic. Since ISA is a non-incorporated agency or
instrumentality of the Republic, its powers, duties, functions, assets and liabilities are properly regarded as folded back into
Republic. It follows that the RP is entitled to be substituted in the expropriation proceedings as party-plaintiff in lieu of ISA.

NOTES:

The Supreme Court held that since ISA is a non-incorporated government agency, its powers, functions and properties are re-
assumed by the Republic. This re-assumption thus led the Republic to assume the role of petitioner in the expropriation case.
Also, there was no need for Congress to pass a new law which would allow the Republic to continue an expropriation case
instituted by a non-incorporated agency. The Congress delegated the power of eminent domain to the President, by allowing
him to direct and institute expropriation proceedings. ISA, being a creation of the President, and the Solicitor

Liban v. Gordon G.R. No. 175352 July 15, 2009

This is a petition to declare Senator Richard J. Gordon (respondent) as having forfeited his seat in the Senate. During
respondent's incumbency as a member of the Senate of the Philippines, he was elected Chairman of the PNRC. Petitioners
allege that by accepting the chairmanship of the PNRC Board of Governors, respondent has violated the constitutional
prohibition on incompatible offices.

Respondent insists that the PNRC is not a government-owned or controlled corporation and that the prohibition under
Section 13, Article VI of the Constitution does not apply in the present case since volunteer service to the PNRC is neither an
office nor an employment.

Issue:

WON the office of the PNRC Chairman is a government office or an office in a govemment-owned or controlled corporation
for purposes of the prohibition in Section 13, Article VI of the Constitution.

Held:

No. PNRC is a Private Organization Performing Public Functions

The PNRC is a non-profit, donor-funded, voluntary, humanitarian organization, whose mission is to bring timely, effective, and
compassionate humanitarian assistance for the most vulnerable without consideration of nationality, race, religion, gender,
social status, or political affiliation.

To ensure and maintain its autonomy, neutrality, and independence, the PNRC cannot be owned or controlled by the
government. Indeed, the Philippine government does not own the PNRC. The PNRC does not have government assets and
does not receive any appropriation from the Philippine Congress The PNRC is financed primarily by contributions from private
individuals and private entities obtained through solicitation campaigns organized by its Board of Governors.,

The PNRC Charter is Violative of the Constitutional Proscription against the Creation of Private Corporations by Special Law

The Constitution recognizes two classes of corporations. The first refers to private corporations created under a general law.
The second refers to government- owned or controlled corporations created by special charters.