SINAPUELAS, JENNIFER G.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW FINAL EXAM

ATTY. MACKI LABALAN

No, the Civil Service Commission should not approve the promotional appointment of
Amelia.
Public officers are strictly prohibited by the Constitution to appoint family members up to
the fourth civil degree of consanguinity and affinity, including wife to any public office.
Here, Amelia, wife of mayor San Jose, was appointed her as City Treasurer from the city
employees. The office sought to be appointed is a public office and from the fact the Amelia is a
wife of mayor San Jose, who is a public officer, is prohibited to be appointed in such position as
City Treasurer. Mayor San Jose as a public officer cannot appoint his wife to any public office.
Also, mayor San Jose has no delegated power to appoint any officials because it is only
delegated to the President.
Hence, the Civil Service Commission should not approve the promotional appointment of
Amelia on the ground of prohibition.

II

No, the action will not prosper.

Jurisprudence provides that a mandamus is a remedy available to a party seeking for the
individual or a quasi -administrative agency to be compelled to perform an act which such act is
obligatory to them under the law.
Here, a building permit applied by Tikboy for the building of his house was denied by the
City Engineering office of Quezon City. Although it is the duty of the City Engineering Office to
grant and issue a permit among applicants of building permit, the law cannot compel them to
grant such application if it is proper for them to deny the application of permit. The City
engineering office already did its part in discharging its duty by denying the application.
Hence, the petition for mandamus filed will not prosper.

III

No, if I were a Judge, I will not grant the motion to dismiss of DENR.
The case decided by the Supreme Court ruled that administrative remedies is available
only when the offender violates some acts related to his official function as a public officer.
Further, as provided under the Rules of Criminal procedure, questions of law shall be moved by
a party through filing a petition for certiorari directly to the Supreme Court.
Here, the issue sought to be dismissed is the petition for nullification of DENR Circular
No. 123-15 which is a question of law. Administrative remedy cannot be availed here.it should
be filed directly to the Supreme Court.
Thus, motion to dismiss will not be granted for lack of merit.

IV

The petition of Juan Tamad will be denied.

Election Code of the Philippines provides that the COMELEC has the power to
promulgate rules and regulations relative to the conduct of election.
In the given scenario, COMELEC issued a Resolution 23-309, pursuant to its rule-
making power which requires all the candidates who will file their COC to submit a drug test
result together with their COC. The issuance of resolution is ministerial in nature to its rule-
making power vested by the Constitution. It is a valid exercise of their duties and functions
relative to the peaceful conduct of election.
Thus, Juan Tamad’s petition questioning the policy of COMELEC will be denied due to
lack of merit.
 V

The appeal will be denied.

The 1987 Constitution expressly defines due process as a right accorded to the accused to
establish their right by defending and explaining their cause to free them from any accusations
tried against them.
` In this case, upon imposing charges of unbecoming and prejudicial to the best interest of
the service, Lolita and Rosario were required by the Landbank to submit their respective position
papers. This requirement allows them to explain and defend themselves. This constitutes due
process accorded to them by Landbank because they could have the opportunity to be heard.
Before they were required to submit their position papers, it is presumed that they are also
informed of their guilt.
Hence, Lolita and Rosario’s contention is untenable and be denied.

VI

a.

Mokang’s contention is correct.

Jurisprudence enumerated jurisdiction of Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is responsible
for investigating and prosecuting public officials and employee charged with graft and corruption
offences. It has the power to investigate and prosecute any public official or employee except for
impeachable officials.
Here, Mokang, is an appointed student regent of Quiapo University. Although receiving
funds form the national government and not utilizing such for original purpose which is to
rehabilitate the library of the said institution, she cannot be charged for the misuse of funds under
the Office of the Ombudsman. She is not a public officer as contemplated under the definition of
a public officer.
Hence, MOkang cannot be charged before the Ombudsman and her contention is correct.

b.

Mokang’s motion to quash will be granted.

Jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan includes public officers and employees accused of graft
and corruption and offences committed in the discharge of its official function, and whose
employee has a salary grade27.
In the case herein, Mokang is a student regent of Quiapo University. She and Tanggol
were charged by the Sandiganbayan for violation of anti-graft and corruption Practices Act.
Although the funds are not accumulated properly to the original purpose, they are not considered
public officers as provided by law.
Thus, Mokang and Tanggol cannot be charged by the Sandiganbayan for violation of anti-
graft and corruption Practices Act. Motion to quash will be granted.

VII

Petition for disqualification will be granted.

Election Code prohibits a candidate to involve in premature campaigning. Premature
campaigning includes acts like forming associations or other group of persons for the purpose of
soliciting votes and undertaking any campaign against a candidate. However, a candidate is
liable for an election offense only for acts done during the campaign period, not before the
campaign period.
Here, after filling Gretchen’s COC, she, together with other supporters launched a
motorcade in several places. The motorcade in several places does not constitutes pre- mature
campaigning since it was done before the campaign period. The inclusion of time after filing of
COC is immaterial since the basis of determining the commission of violation is the period of
campaign not the period of filing COC.
Thus, the Petition to disqualify her on the ground that the motorcade that constitutes a
premature campaigning will be gran
 VIII

No, the rule is not valid.

Jurisprudence explains that for a rule to be valid, it should be promulgated by the quasi-
judicial bodies or administrative agencies vested such power to promulgate laws.
Here, DENR added electronic fishing rules as an additional prohibition to the prior Law
enacted by the Congress to Fisheries Law. DENR is not the proper body, or it has no power to
promulgate such prohibition as an addition to the enacted laws of Fisheries Law. It is only the
Fisheries Department has the vested power to add some prohibition.
Hence, the rule added by the DENR as prohibition is not valid.

IX

a.

Yes, the contention of Mayor X will prosper.

Election Code of the Philippines provides that an elected official's previous misconduct
or wrongdoing is forgiven or condoned once they are re-elected or are allowed to complete their
term without any challenge to their qualifications.
Here, Mayor X was re-elected again for his third term as mayor of Usok while his case
was still pending. This re-election condoned his criminal case pending in the Office of the
Ombudsman.
Hence, Mayor X’s administrative liability is extinguished.

b.

No, mayor X cannot run as mayor in Usok in 2022.

Omnibus Election Code provides that municipal officials has only three-time limit.
Here, suppose that Court of Appeals granted mayor X and reinstated him back to his
office in 2021, his term of office is already 3rd times in this year.
Thus, mayor X can no longer run as mayor in Usok.

COMELEC’s contention is unatenable.

The Constitution expressly vested right to COMELEC to promulgate rules and
regulations relative on the conduct of election. One of which is the regulation of posting of
propaganda materials on campaign period.
In the given case, Resolution 9615 of COMELEC provides rules that would implement
Fair Election Act, One of which is the provisions of the resolution on the posting of any election
propaganda or materials on public utility vehicles and within the premise of public transport.
Then later on COMELEC contends that it may impose the prohibition during the election
pursuant to its regulatory powers delegated by the Constitution. The latter contention will defeat
the prior rules and regulations of the COMELEC. The COMELEC should have a consistent
implementation of its rules in exercising its regulatory power. It cannot regulate its rules which
will impede the successful implementation of its rules. The said imposition of prohibition during
election is prohibited because posting of propaganda should be done prior to election. If it is
done during the election, then it will impede the implementation of its own rules.
Hence, COMELC’s contention cannot be given credence.
 XI

No, Butz Aquino is not qualified to run as Congressman of Makati City.

One of the qualifications stated under the Omnibus Election Code among Congressman is
the residency requirement. It should be shown that a candidate upon filing the COC must have a
resident for not less than 1 year immediately preceding the election.
Here, Butz Aquino resides in Tarlac when he filed his COC for Congressman in Makati
City. The fact that he rented condo in Makati City 1 year before the election does not qualify the
requirement of residency. Residence is where a candidate permanently resides.
Hence, Butz Aquino is not qualified to run as Congressman on Makati City on for the
lack of residency requirement.

XII

A.

The threefold liability of a public officer are: first, criminal liability. A public officer will
be held criminally liable if he committed crime punishable by the Revised Penal Code such as
graft and corruption, culpable violation of the public office, bribery and other high crimes.
Second, is the civil liability. Public officer is liable to whatever act done which causes damage to
another. He/ she may be sued for moral, temperate, nominal, actual and exemplary damages.
The third one is the administrative liability. A public officer will be held administratively
liable if committed a violation of rules and regulations promulgated by the quasi-judicial bodies
and administrative bodies vested by Law to promulgate and implement such rules and
regulations.

B.

The contention of Tata Riks has merit.

Jurisprudence provides that administrative case may be filed to public officers
committing violation on laws and regulations of administrative bodies, upon the exercise of his
official function as public officer.
Here, Tata Riks reaches the age of mandatory retirement of 65 years old while his
administrative case is pending. His retirement makes him not a public officer anymore and not
functioning duties of public officers.
Therefore, Tata Riks cannot be anymore subject to administrative liability.