Scribd
Upload
555 views1 page

Santos Vs Yatco

1. Santos v. Yatco involved a case where the Secretary of National Defense was prohibited from campaigning on behalf of the governor in Bulacan province. The Secretary argued he was not covered by the 1935 constitutional prohibition on civil servants engaging in electioneering. The Court agreed, finding that Cabinet members like the Secretary were not intended to be included in the prohibition based on the records of the Constitutional Convention. The Court also reasoned that Cabinet members were expected to exert political influence as the President's alternates.

Uploaded by

spidercye
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
555 views1 page

Santos Vs Yatco

1. Santos v. Yatco involved a case where the Secretary of National Defense was prohibited from campaigning on behalf of the governor in Bulacan province. The Secretary argued he was not covered by the 1935 constitutional prohibition on civil servants engaging in electioneering. The Court agreed, finding that Cabinet members like the Secretary were not intended to be included in the prohibition based on the records of the Constitutional Convention. The Court also reasoned that Cabinet members were expected to exert political influence as the President's alternates.

Uploaded by

spidercye
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

1. Santos v.

Yatco 106 PHIL


FACTS: Judge Yatco issued an order disallowing the Secretary of National Defense from
conducting a house-to-house campaign on behalf of Governor Tomas Martin in the province of
Bulacan. Thus, the Secretary-petitioner filed a complaint for prohibition of the order, enjoining the
enforcement thereof, claiming that he is not covered by the 1935 constitutional prohibition stating
that, “No officer or employee in the Civil Service shall engage, directly or indirectly, in any
electioneering or partisan political campaign.

ISSUE: Is Santos, as Secretary of National Defense, covered by the 1935 Constitutional


prohibition?

HELD: No.The Court held that Santos is not covered by the constitutional prohibition. The Court
cited the records and proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, wherein a delegate moved
for the formal inclusion of Cabinet members but such motion was dismissed – hence, by reason
of inferring that the Constitutional Commission had reasonably intended that Cabinet members
are not included in the prohibition. Furthermore, the Court reasoned that Cabinet Members, being
alter egos of the President, were in fact chosen principally for their political influences. Thus, they
were expected to exert for the purpose of ensuring support for the administration.

You might also like